Reckless Congress declares war on Russia

[Skybird]

This resolution seems to have passed unnoticed...?!

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...war-on-russia/

These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.

It seems some idiots there are who cannot reach war with Russia too early. Cowboys, drunk of themselves.

[Oberon]

It's been mentioned in the Ferguson thread...which is exactly where you'd look for discussion on such a thing...

Anyway, it's no surprise that this has come about, I doubt it'll lead to war with Russia though, no more than arming the Mujahideen lead to war with the Soviet Union. There might be clashes between proxy troops, but not actual US vs Russia fire, both sides have too much to lose to let it get that far.

[Rockstar]

In his 1935 book, War Is a Racket, Butler presented an exposé and trenchant condemnation of the profit motive behind warfare. His views on the subject are well summarized in the following passage from a 1935 issue of "the non-Marxist, socialist" magazine, Common Sense – one of Butler's most widely quoted statements:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

[magicstix]

Considering Putin has already threatened nuclear war, I'd say a little "harsh language" from a Congress that never does anything isn't a big deal...

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by magicstix

Considering Putin has already threatened nuclear war, I'd say a little "harsh language" from a Congress that never does anything isn't a big deal...

I could be wrong, but from what I remember such resolutions lead to armed intervention.

[Jimbuna]

Politicians, don't we all just love em.

[August]

Oh so now instead of not being able to stop Russia from gobbling up pieces of it's neighbors we're not even supposed to say that we don't like it?

[Oberon]

The full text of the Resolution:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hres758/text

To be honest, it's nothing really that hasn't already been said and done:

(1)strongly supports the efforts by President Poroshenko and the people of Ukraine to establish a lasting peace in their country that includes the full withdrawal of Russian forces from the territory of Ukraine, full control of Ukraine’s international borders, the disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine, the adoption of policies to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use energy exports and trade barriers as weapons to apply economic and political pressure, and an end to interference by the Russian Federation in the internal affairs of Ukraine;

This is perhaps one of the stronger parts of the resolution, however it does not state that there would be military intervention.

(2)affirms the right of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and all countries to exercise their sovereign rights within their internationally recognized borders free from outside intervention, and to conduct their foreign policy in accordance with their determination of the best interests of their peoples;

As normal

(3)condemns the continuing political, economic, and military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova and the continuing violation of their sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity;

Nothing that hasn't already been said by Biden

(4)states that the military intervention by the Russian Federation in Ukraine—
(A)is in breach of its obligations under the United Nations Charter;
(B)is in clear violation of each of the 10 principles of the 1975 Helsinki Accords;
(C)is in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in which it pledged to respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine and to refrain from the threat of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine; and
(D)poses a threat to international peace and security;

Standard procedure, although the Helsinki Accords are not binding and have been trodden over by numerous states since '75, however the 1994 Budapest Memorandum has definitely been broken.

(5)calls on the Russian Federation to reverse its illegal annexation of Crimea, to end its support of the separatist forces in Crimea, and to remove its military forces from that region other than those operating in strict accordance with its 1997 agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet Stationing on the Territory of Ukraine;

Urinating into the wind here, but they can't except the loss of Crimea without inviting the possibility of more concessions down the line.

(6)calls on the President to cooperate with United States allies and partners in Europe and other countries around the world to refuse to recognize any de jure or de facto sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea, its airspace, or its territorial waters;

Pretty much already being done by the US allies anyway.

(7)calls on the Russian Federation to remove its military forces and military equipment from the territory of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and to end its political, military, and economic support of separatist forces;

That ain't going to happen.

(8)calls on the Russian Federation and the separatist forces it supports and controls in Ukraine to end their violations of the cease-fire announced in Minsk on September 5, 2014;

I believe the reply will be "prove it"

(9)calls on the President to cooperate with United States allies and partners in Europe and other countries around the world to impose visa bans, targeted asset freezes, sectoral sanctions, and other measures on the Russian Federation and its leadership with the goal of compelling it to end its violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, to remove its military forces and equipment from Ukrainian territory, and to end its support of separatist and paramilitary forces;

Already being done.

(10)calls on the President to provide the Government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty;

The only part of that which could be sticky is the training, especially if it results in US troops on Ukrainian soil, but no mention made of bases or major deployments of US forces

(11)calls on the President to provide the Government of Ukraine with appropriate intelligence and other relevant information in a timely manner to assist the Government of Ukraine to defend its territory and sovereignty;

To be expected, I dare say Russia has been doing the same to its friends in Eastern Ukraine

(12)calls on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and United States partners in Europe and other nations around the world to suspend all military cooperation with Russia, including prohibiting the sale to the Russian Government of lethal and non-lethal military equipment;

Already been pretty much done

(13)reaffirms the commitment of the United States to its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, especially Article 5, and calls on all Alliance member states to provide their full share of the resources needed to ensure their collective defense;

As has been exhaustingly pointed out by Skybird, Article 5 has wording which is fairly ambiguous, and the 'aid' supplied could be anything from an SSBN of SLBMs to an infantryman and a can of beans. In this instance though, it's just basically a reaffirmation of the US's commitment to the defence of Europe...all fairly basic stuff.

(14)urges the President, in consultation with Congress, to conduct a review of the force posture, readiness, and responsibilities of United States Armed Forces and the forces of other members of NATO to determine if the contributions and actions of each are sufficient to meet the obligations of collective self-defense under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and to specify the measures needed to remedy any deficiencies;

Well, since we're going back to having Russia as the bad guy there's no point in being geared to fight a desert war, time to bring all the Cold War gear out of the mothballs again!

(15)welcomes the decision of France to indefinitely suspend the delivery of the Mistral-class warships to the Russian Federation and urges the United States, France, NATO, and other partners to engage in consultations and consider all alternative acquisition options for such warships which would not include transfer of the ships to the Russian Federation;

The Royal Navy could have them...but we'd still have nothing to fly from them...

(16)urges the President to publicly hold the Russian Federation accountable for violations of its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and to take action to bring the Russian Federation back into compliance with the Treaty;

Again, I can foresee the answer to this being "Prove it" and unless the US is willing to disclose pictures of Russian nuclear forces in or near Ukrainian territory ala the Cuban Missile Crisis then that's just urinating into the wind again.

(17)urges the President to work with Asian, European, and other allies to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure the Russian Federation is not able to gain any benefit by its development of military systems that violate the INF Treaty;

Probably relates more to Eastern Europe and that missile shield, I can't see them making any head-way with China, so perhaps building up the defences on Japan would work...but since Japan is already sliding towards anti-Americanism, the best bet might just be to nudge them into dropping Article Nine of their constitution and bring them on board as a fully fledged alliance member. Would really annoy China but would also help provide a counterbalance in the Pacific.

(18)believes the emplacement by the Russian Federation of its nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory would constitute a provocative and destabilizing move;

Would, note the wording there, would. Perhaps Russia has put word through that they intend to, perhaps to counter the missile shield, I believe there was a threat of putting nuclear weapons in that Oblast of theirs near Poland, so that makes sense.

(19)calls on Ukraine and other countries to support energy diversification initiatives to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use its energy exports as a means of applying political or economic pressure, including by promoting energy efficiency and reverse natural gas flows from Western Europe, and calls on the United States to promote increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency;

No surprises there.

(20)calls on the President and the United States Department of State to develop a strategy for multilateral coordination to produce or otherwise procure and distribute news and information in the Russian language to countries with significant Russian-speaking populations which maximizes the use of existing platforms for content delivery such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Incorporated, leverages indigenous public-private partnerships for content production, and seeks in-kind contributions from regional state governments;

I hope I get the BBC World Service back on the local old Radar masts. They used to broadcast that at Eastern Europe but shut it down a few years back.

(21)calls on the United States Department of State to identify positions at key diplomatic posts in Europe to evaluate the political, economic, and cultural influence of Russia and Russian state-sponsored media and to coordinate with host governments on appropriate responses;

Good luck with that, RT has been very active over the past decade, will be a rush for them to catch up.

(22)calls on the Russian Federation to cease its support for the Assad regime in Syria;

Yeah...

(23)calls on the President to publicly and privately demand the Russian Federation cease its destabilizing behavior at every opportunity and in every engagement between the United States and its officials and the Russian Federation and its officials;

No more than he's already been doing, and failing.

(24)calls upon the Russian Federation to seek a mutually beneficial relationship with the United States that is based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of all countries and their right to freely determine their future, including their relationship with other nations and international organizations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries; and

Usual spiel, not likely to happen but they have to put it in otherwise it's deemed as too aggressive.

(25)calls for the reestablishment of a close and cooperative relationship between the people of the United States and the Russian people based on the shared pursuit of democracy, human rights, and peace among all nations.

So, whilst it lays the groundwork and leaves the door open for further involvement in Ukraine down the line, at the moment this resolution is fairly straightforward and is, essentially, just a continuation of what the US has been doing already. The only bit that is a little concerning is the training part of giving the lethal and non-lethal weaponry to the Ukraine, but I imagine they'll probably bring the Ukrainians into Eastern Europe, Poland maybe, to train them there. I think actually putting US soldiers into Ukraine in any role would be a little too aggressive for the message which is being put out.

The US people don't want a war with Russia, and any US President or Congressman who inititates one will be lynched from the streetlamps in Washington. I imagine the same is true in Moscow.
The rest is just pushing boundaries to see what gives and what doesn't.
We've been in worse places than this, during the Cold War, and military action between the US and the Soviet Union didn't take place then, I see no reason why it should now.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Oh so now instead of not being able to stop Russia from gobbling up pieces of it's neighbors we're not even supposed to say that we don't like it?

Just for you:

...
The resolution (paragraph 3) accuses Russia of an invasion of Ukraine and condemns Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The statement is offered without any proof of such a thing.
...
why isn’t it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in February?
...
We heard US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. Why is that OK?
...
The resolution (paragraph 11) accuses the people in east Ukraine of holding “fraudulent and illegal elections” in November. Why is it that every time elections do not produce the results desired by the US government they are called “illegal” and “fraudulent”? Aren’t the people of eastern Ukraine allowed self-determination? Isn’t that a basic human right?
...
The resolution (paragraph 14) states with certainty that the Malaysia Airlines flight 17 that crashed in Ukraine was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.” This is simply incorrect, as the final report on the investigation of this tragedy will not even be released until next year and the preliminary report did not state that a missile brought down the plane. Neither did the preliminary report – conducted with the participation of all countries involved – assign blame to any side.
...
Paragraph 16 of the resolution condemns Russia for selling arms to the Assad government in Syria. It does not mention, of course, that those weapons are going to fight ISIS – which we claim is the enemy -- while the US weapons supplied to the rebels in Syria have actually found their way into the hands of ISIS!
...
The resolution (paragraph 22) states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. This is simply untrue. Even the European Union – no friend of Russia – concluded in its investigation of the events in 2008 that it was Georgia that “started an unjustified war” against Russia not the other way around! How does Congress get away with such blatant falsehoods
...
In paragraph 34 the resolution begins to even become comical, condemning the Russians for what it claims are attacks on computer networks of the United States and “illicitly acquiring information” about the US government. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations about the level of US spying on the rest of the world, how can the US claim the moral authority to condemn such actions in others?
...
Chillingly, the resolution singles out Russian state-funded media outlets for attack, claiming that they “distort public opinion.” The US government, of course, spends billions of dollars worldwide to finance and sponsor media outlets including Voice of America and RFE/RL, as well as to subsidize “independent” media in countless counties overseas. How long before alternative information sources like RT are banned in the United States? This legislation brings us closer to that unhappy day when the government decides the kind of programming we can and cannot consume – and calls such a violation “freedom.”
...
The resolution gives the green light (paragraph 45) to Ukrainian President Poroshenko to re-start his military assault on the independence-seeking eastern provinces, urging the “disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine.” Such a move will mean many more thousands of dead civilians.

To that end, the resolution directly involves the US government in the conflict by calling on the US president to “provide the government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty.” This means US weapons in the hands of US-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia. Does that sound at all like a good idea?

Maybe choose better what you don't like and what you want to say. Don't take half-truths for truths, and possibilities for certainties. Especially not in policy and law making.

Why this resolution matters? Because it is a constitutional body's formal release, inclduing demands for forming foreign policy and implied legislation where needed.

These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.

Especially the still total ignoration of the example with Georgia, pisses me. One could also add the lousy experiences withg the Arab "Sprinbg" one was celebrating, and that now has lead to a nightmare and to good degree right the opposite of what one expected from it.

This means US weapons in the hands of US-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia. Does that sound at all like a good idea?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Just for you:

[Buddahaid]

I'm sorry but all this sounds like Star Trek's Federation which bends every direction to not offend any new aliens, but those very same aliens are offensive as hell. Too bad.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Just for you:

Dude this is nothing but a Tempest in a Teapot from a politician known for making such stormy micro brews, but you go ahead and worry about it for the both of us.

[Oberon]

[Kaptlt.Endrass]

Originally Posted by magicstix

Considering Putin has already threatened nuclear war, I'd say a little "harsh language" from a Congress that never does anything isn't a big deal...

Threatened, yes. But actually doing it? Unlikely. Despite what many of my fellow Americans think, Putin is smart. The Russians know that they'd lose as much as we would, even if they won't admit it. The retaliation from even a single nuclear launch, from either side, would be devastating. And remember the Cuban Missle Crisis. The two were literally playing a game of chicken towards the end that would have ended with cockroaches the dominant species (and perhaps the Swiss).

At the worst level, a conventional war, possibly WWIII, will break out, with either\all sides refusing to launch, and the result being the true end of the Cold War and the establishment of THE superpower.

For now, lets all throw threats, point WMDs, and flex the martial muscles at each other.

[vanjast]

Hey.. USA.. don't start another war you'll lose...again.
Hell's you cannot whip a bunch of non-techno-savvy sand crawlers with towels on their heads, now you want to pick a fight with better technology

If you look at recent history, the USSR also has a history of getting their butts whipped. Just let them continue.. it'll blow up in their faces... again.