Skip to comments.Russian Amb. on Obama’s Comments: If You Consider Russia “a Regional Power,” Look at Our Region...
Posted on 03/30/2014 9:13:40 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Russian Amb. on Obamas Comments: If You Consider Russia a Regional Power, Look at Our Region From Europe to Asia
Russias ambassador to the United States this morning had a sharp retort when asked about President Obamas comments that Russia is a regional power acting out of weanes.
If you consider Russia a regional power, he said, look at our region it is from Europe to Asia. President Vladimir Putin has talked up a Eurasioan Union as his anti-Western alternative to the European Union, and close advisers to Putin believe in a certain Eurasian ideology.
When ABCs George Stephanopoulos asked the ambassador whether Russia would consider pulling back from Crimea as a condition of a diplomatic solution, he wasnt taken too seriously either: What kind of from Crimea are you talking about? Ambassador Kislyak said. We are talking about territory of Russian Federation [sic].
Crimea, he said, is now part of Russia, because there was an expressed will of people living in Crime to become part of Russian Federation.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Great response by the Russian diplomat
NOBODY wants to be out of weanes.
Has anyone noticed how much Obama cares for the “will” of the people of Crimea, and yet he thinks nothing of trampling on the will of the American people?
when you have to bribe supposedly friendly governments in the Western Hemisphere - like Nicaragua and Venezuela - just to allow your military vessels to briefly dock there,
and when you have half as many aircraft carriers as the Italian Navy,
and when your entire active infantry have to be deployed to pacify an area of your own country that's smaller than Connecticut with a quarter of CT's population
you're a regional power.
Crimea, he said, is now part of Russia, because there was an expressed will of people living in Crimea to become part of Russian Federation.
He makes a valid point. Although the election may have been far from pure, there nonetheless was an election in Crimea. In the Ukraine, there was a coup. Which one appears to be the more legitimate?
Ah, another Putin lickspittle on a forum intended for American patriots.
Everyone around the world pays for docking.
The elected representatives of the Ukrainian people, however, impeached their President for violating their constitution - clearly you know neither what an election is, nor what a coup is.
We don't have to offer Brazil or Australia special trade preferences and free oil just to dock our vessels in their harbors.
“There was no election in Crimea.”
You may not like the way it was done, but that is simply a false and ignorant statment.
Bush was called a “cowboy” - but he never publicly belittled a foreign power with whom he negotiating.
A foreign power invaded and presided over a charade.
The so-called "election" was not held according to local laws, it involved thousands of foreign nationals crossing the border to "vote" as if they were citizens, the "election" was supervised by armed foreign troops, and the majority of Crimeans did not participate.
If the Mexican army marched into Los Angeles, cordoned it off, declared - contrary to US and California law - that they were going to hold an election to determine if LA would become an "independent" nation, then marched through the streets beating and assaulting any Americans who protested, stood armed at polls, and bused in thousands of people from Mexico to pad the results because no Americans were willing to legitimize their power grab by even showing up to vote "no" - would that also be an election?
Would calling that "election" a fake and a sham be "ignorant"?
I can believe how many FReepers are in love with a two-bit foreign dictator.
May your chains lie lightly upon you.
Obama could not help stooping to the Russian level of discourse. He’s as crass and classless as Putin.
Obama is being beaten at every level.
All joined together buy one railway line and one highway.
Russia is still a Third World country with nukes.
Like Alcibiades, they love their country so much they would have her back by any means.
The single Russian aircraft carrier has a larger displacement than both Italian carriers together — not that a single metric means much.
How would your conclusion change, if you were to factor in Russian strategic and tactical nuclear weapons , and Russian nuclear submarines?
Oh, so you agree with Obama’s comment?
That Russia is a regional power? Yes.
They could not do the same to us.
Their aging nuclear arsenal could indeed start a global war - but it's hard to call yourself a global power if the only way you can make your power felt globally is to use a tactic that will ensure your own erasure as a country.
The thing is, Russia could wind up doing something they couldn’t do during the Cold War, winning the “Hearts and Minds” war.
With the US making promoting gay rights and proclaiming that Global Warming is the greatest danger to mankind, and trying to bully other nations to adopt their agenda, this is putting off a lot of countries that think the US should butt out of such things.
The US never ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
Putin's Russia not only ratified it, Russia's ratification was the last one needed to make it binding on the parties - Russia is the one who imposed Kyoto on the world.