President Romney would be all talk, no action in this situation. What the hell else can he or ANY American president do about the Ukraine? Right this moment, the US/NATO position in Afghanistan is logistically dependent upon an incredibly long and complex line of communications which runs right through Russia and is highly dependent upon co-operation from the Russians to function. That LOC is called the Northern Distribution Network. No one in the Pentagon is going to advocate any sort of military adventurism in this crisis as long as they need Russian help to supply their forces in Afghanistan. Pity about that, really, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
How Does Romney Handle the Ukraine Crisis?
- Thread starter Expat
- Start date
President Romney would be all talk, no action in this situation. What the hell else can he or ANY American president do about the Ukraine? Right this moment, the US/NATO position in Afghanistan is logistically dependent upon an incredibly long and complex line of communications which runs right through Russia and is highly dependent upon co-operation from the Russians to function. That LOC is called the Northern Distribution Network. No one in the Pentagon is going to advocate any sort of military adventurism in this crisis as long as they need Russian help to supply their forces in Afghanistan. Pity about that, really, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
If that were a factor, then there would not have been sanctions put in place after the fact by the Obama administration.
Token "look-like-we're-doing-something" sanctions are something fundamentally different from "military adventurism."
A naval drill is not military adventurism, but a harmless warning. Try telling this admiistration that its sanctions are only token
Good question. My out-there guess would be Jon Huntsman, but that is far from certain.
He wouldn't be surprised by Russia's antics. Didn't he say something during his election campaign about keeping an eye on Russia, only to be mocked by the Left? If so then who's laughing now?
I don't think either (R) would go to war over it. I'm not sure Putin would press his luck with McCain in the White House. By that I mean Russia would stop at Crimea (assuming they simply didn't wait for his term to expire to annex it) and not press for eastern Ukraine. Maybe there could be a NATO naval exercise in the Black Sea or Baltic, something to tell Russia 'hey, we're watching you'. As for Romney; sanctions might be a little tougher, but I don't see it being much different from Obama.
The republican did nothing in Georgia, they weren't going to do nothing now. The truth is the USA and UE considered the Ukraine in the Russian orbit and they aren't going to war for it. Germans and italians need that gas more than english and french but was the intervention of german and other european ministers that caused the parlament turning against the president. Beside the past years interventism have given them ideological ammunition to accuse europe and america of hipocrisy no matter how false.
The Romneys and the Huntsmans have some sort of weird feud. Maybe Robert Zoellick?
Not sure that the US is happy about Ukraine, but this could turn deadly serious if things get out of hand. Right now, enemies like A-Q and the Taliban have no access to Russian intelligence, communications, doctrine, training, funding or equipment. Top priority is to keep it that way.
Orville_third
Banned
Given how the Senate backed the war in Iraq and the war in Libya, they'd vote for it.
Given how many Democrats remaining would be anti-war and anti-Romney, and add in the Paulite Republicans (plus a few Russophiles like Dana Rohrbacher), and we may see a surprise "no" vote, like the UK Parliament did on Syria.
Tallest Skil
Banned
By unilaterially going ahead with the missile defense systems previously pulled from Eastern Europe.
Have to look at other possibilites regarding the political landscape
a) US military capability would likely be overstretched. We'd be more heavily involved in Afghan and Iraq right now at minimum, which wouldn't be too bad, but I suspect we'd likely have something on the ground in Syria as well. These things in addition would lead to lower manpower in the military, as PTSD would be a huge story (moreso than OTL), and not even a terrible economy would cause folks to join the military, especially if stop-loss became a long-term thing, which might happen if they found insufficient recruits. You'd also see a drain on mid-level officers. I saw some of that when I was in myself under Bush.
b) I suspect we'd see a Dem wave election in 2010 in reaction to the economy tanking- which would lead to some huge butterflies. I suspect the new crop of Dems (with the economy in much worse shape in the short-term, and prob long-term) would be more economically focused, and you'd have gerrymanders on the left instead of the right. Romney would likely face a no vote, so he'd have to own anything and do it unilaterally, and take huge heat for it.
Under those circumstances, I suspect he'd have even fewer options than Obama.
a) US military capability would likely be overstretched. We'd be more heavily involved in Afghan and Iraq right now at minimum, which wouldn't be too bad, but I suspect we'd likely have something on the ground in Syria as well. These things in addition would lead to lower manpower in the military, as PTSD would be a huge story (moreso than OTL), and not even a terrible economy would cause folks to join the military, especially if stop-loss became a long-term thing, which might happen if they found insufficient recruits. You'd also see a drain on mid-level officers. I saw some of that when I was in myself under Bush.
b) I suspect we'd see a Dem wave election in 2010 in reaction to the economy tanking- which would lead to some huge butterflies. I suspect the new crop of Dems (with the economy in much worse shape in the short-term, and prob long-term) would be more economically focused, and you'd have gerrymanders on the left instead of the right. Romney would likely face a no vote, so he'd have to own anything and do it unilaterally, and take huge heat for it.
Under those circumstances, I suspect he'd have even fewer options than Obama.
Romney would not have been able to reescalate in Iraq; your timetable is off.
If he thought there was somebody willing to trade punches over Ukraine he would. He's going to do as much as he knows he can get away with. He'll continue doing so as long as he has some leverage (Siberian oil or whatever for Europe). He wouldn't risk any general war over Ukraine. If there was a President rattling the saber, what would Putin do? Actually, he'd probably wait until the man's term is over and go right back to doing whatever he can get away with.
Which would be less if UKraine is integrated into Europe by the time said man was out of office.
No, he wouldn't. The fallacy from the far right is that everyone is afraid of American military power and run away if confronted. This assumption works well right up until the moment it doesn't.
He would take the eastern half of Ukraine, and there is nothing on Earth that could stop him.
Putin's Ukraine gambit has been a no-risk proposition. That changes if Washington has been walking a harder line with Moscow, and has given overt signs of support to the new regime before Russia could act.