3 minutes ago
Obama on Ukraine: The U.S. is 'deeply concerned'
(CNN) - The United States is "deeply concerned" by reports of Russian military movements inside Ukraine, President Barack Obama said Friday, saying any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty would be "deeply destabilizing."

Obama said that the situation in Ukraine was "very fluid" and that the United States would continue to coordinate closely with European allies and communicate directly with the Russian government.

"The United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine," he said.

Here's a transcript of his remarks:

Good afternoon, everybody.
Over the last several days, the United States has been responding to events as they unfold in Ukraine. Throughout this crisis, we have been very clear about one fundamental principle: The Ukrainian people deserve the opportunity to determine their own future. Together with our European allies, we have urged an end to the violence and encouraged Ukrainians to pursue a course in which they stabilize their country, forge a broad-based government and move to elections this spring.

I also spoke several days ago with President Putin, and my administration has been in daily communication with Russian officials, and we've made clear that they can be part of an international community’s effort to support the stability and success of a united Ukraine going forward, which is not only in the interest of The people of Ukraine and the international community, but also in Russia’s interest.

However, we are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside of Ukraine. Russia has a historic relationship with Ukraine, including cultural and economic ties, and a military facility in Crimea, but any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing, which is not in the interest of Ukraine, Russia, or Europe.

It would represent a profound interference in matters that must be determined by the Ukrainian people. It would be a clear violence of Russia’s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, and of international laws. And just days after the world came to Russia for the Olympic Games, it would invite the condemnation of nations around the world. And indeed, the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.

The events of the past several months remind us of how difficult democracy can be in a country with deep divisions. But the Ukrainian people have also reminded us that human beings have a universal right to determine their own future.

Right now, the situation remains very fluid. Vice President Biden just spoke with Prime Minister - the Prime Minister of Ukraine to assure him that in this difficult moment the United States supports his government’s efforts and stands for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic future of Ukraine. I also commend the Ukrainian government’s restraint and its commitment to uphold its international obligations.

We will continue to coordinate closely with our European allies. We will continue to communicate directly with the Russian government. And we will continue to keep all of you in the press corps and the American people informed as events develop.

Thanks very much.

 whembly wrote:
The Obama admin knows how to "nuance" things eh?

Says to something of the effect that Russian troops rolling into Ukraine an “uncontested arrival,” not an “invasion”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gAmGl7xL6fc

Remember that dummy Romney saying that Russian is the US's number one geopolitical foe? Yeah... about that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hY_7pH5XV_w

 purplefood wrote:
That treaty from 1994 kinda means both the US and the UK have to intervene... unless they don't an basically invalidate any other treaty they have ever made.

 whembly wrote:
You know what... the one thing that did catch my attention was he congratulated Ukraine for showing “restraint.”

That's interesting because Russia is probably watching and waiting for a pretext to order a wider invasion. If their comparatively small force in Crimea comes under attack, the ghost of the hamma/sickle is waiting.

 whembly wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
That treaty from 1994 kinda means both the US and the UK have to intervene... unless they don't an basically invalidate any other treaty they have ever made.

What treaty is that?

 purplefood wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
That treaty from 1994 kinda means both the US and the UK have to intervene... unless they don't an basically invalidate any other treaty they have ever made.

What treaty is that?

A nuclear disarmament treaty in which Ukraine got rid of their nukes in return for security assurances from the UK, US and Russia...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
That treaty from 1994 kinda means both the US and the UK have to intervene... unless they don't an basically invalidate any other treaty they have ever made.

What treaty is that?

A nuclear disarmament treaty in which Ukraine got rid of their nukes in return for security assurances from the UK, US and Russia...

I also remember the NATO making a treaty in which it promised not to expand further east...
NATO and the West are somewhat notorious for breaking treaties.

 Breotan wrote:
What must it be to be Taiwanese right now, watching these events in Ukraine unfold, then looking westward toward mainland China?

Relapse wrote:
The thing that pisses me off about the whole thing is that the U.S. and Russia could be a gak hot team in making this world a better place.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The thing that pisses me off about the whole thing is that the U.S. and Russia could be a gak hot team in making this world a better place.

Absolutely. Except for past history, resource competition, and conflicting interests.

 Ouze wrote:
Good to see this thread descended, as every thread must, into "lol Obama sux".

Christ, you guys are so fething tiresome.

 Ouze wrote:
Good to see this thread descended, as every thread must, into "lol Obama sux".

Christ, you guys are so fething tiresome.

 Ouze wrote:
Good to see this thread descended, as every thread must, into "lol Obama sux".

Christ, you guys are so fething tiresome.

Canada makes strong commitment to Ukraine
KATHRYN BLAZE CARLSON
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Ottawa is making no apologies for taking sides in the political transition unfolding in Ukraine, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper backing the country’s territorial integrity and reaching out to allies as Western nations expressed growing alarm over Russia’s actions in Crimea.

Friday was an active day for Canada on the international stage: Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird met on the ground with Kiev’s new leadership the same day the country’s new interior minister accused Russia of “armed invasion” in its southern Crimea region. And Mr. Harper spoke about the developments in Ukraine with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is considered a main link between Western leaders and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Prime Minister also spoke earlier this week with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

At a press conference in Kiev on Friday, Mr. Baird laid bare Canada’s commitment to Ukraine, even as ousted president Viktor Yanukovych emerged in Russia to assert his political status and challenge the legality of the planned May election. Mr. Baird said Canada would offer economic, technical and political support, noting Ottawa is ready to work with the International Monetary Fund and suggesting it will again deploy election observers. And when asked whether he fears siding with the new government could hamper Ottawa’s diplomatic relationship with Moscow, Mr. Baird said, “Canada is not the world’s referee.”

“We stand on the side of the Ukrainian people,” he said after meetings that included the interim President and the newly appointed interim Prime Minister. “We stand for peace, prosperity, security and freedom. We expect the Russian Federation to honour the commitments it made in the Budapest Declaration [committing to Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty], and we certainly don’t apologize for standing with the Ukrainian people in their struggle for freedom.” Some veteran Canadian diplomats question Canada’s partisan approach . Christopher Westdal, who was Canada’s ambassador to Ukraine from 1996 to 1998 and to Russia from 2003 to 2006, said Ottawa has lost credibility with Moscow and has no role to play now as an intermediary on this issue. “I think there are limits, and I think there’s a price to pay in terms of any influence with Russia,” he said. “Our credibility is lopsided.”

Ottawa says it has been collaborating with its allies, and its position that Mr. Yanukovych is no longer the former Soviet state’s leader is hardly unique among Western nations. But while others, including Ms. Merkel and U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice, have made clear there is no inherent contradiction between Ukraine’s long-standing ties to Russia and a closer association with Europe, Mr. Baird spoke of “a path which leads to Ukraine’s European integration.” And although Mr. Harper did not mention Moscow when speaking publicly on the issue on Friday, he left no doubt where Ottawa stands.

“Given developments that we see that are worrying, to us, I think it is important as Canadians that we emphasize our very strong support – we emphasize this with all countries in the region – our very strong support for the territorial integrity and respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine,” he said in Brampton, Ont.

Mr. Westdal said the government’s firm stand on Ukraine can be viewed through a domestic lens: Canada is home to 1.3 million Ukrainian-Canadians, and a federal election is around the corner in 2015. “We’ve got a diaspora-driven foreign policy,” he said. “It might work at the polls, but it doesn’t do much good in the world.”

With a report from Adrian Morrow in Toronto

 Ouze wrote:
Good to see this thread descended, as every thread must, into "lol Obama sux".

Christ, you guys are so fething tiresome.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm willing to bet that Ukraine was asked to show restraint by US/EU in the hope that with enough rope Russia will hang itself on the political stage. Which is a little bit of a gamble because Russia seems less concerned with it's international image than other nations.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The second the Ukraine fires a shot (even in self defense) it will be all the pre-text Russia needs.

 Ouze wrote:
Good to see this thread descended, as every thread must, into "lol Obama sux".

Christ, you guys are so fething tiresome.

 whembly wrote:
Obama on Syria: "...don't cross the red line"

Obama on Ukraine: "... there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine"

Seems like a stronger statement...eh?

But, what the feth can we do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what... the one thing that did catch my attention was he congratulated Ukraine for showing “restraint.”

That's interesting because Russia is probably watching and waiting for a pretext to order a wider invasion. If their comparatively small force in Crimea comes under attack, the ghost of the hamma/sickle is waiting.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Ouze, people have every right to criticise Obama's foreign record in this regard. I like Obama, If I had been born American, I probably would have voted for him, but that's not the issue.

Let's look at Obama's track record in dealing with Putin:

1) Obama bent over backwards to appease Putin via missile defence in Eastern Europe in return for a Putin promise on dealing with Iran. Result? Nothing happened. 1-0 to Putin

2) Syria,- we all know who ran rings around Obama there, and let's not mention red lines! Result? 2-0 to Putin.

3) Obama warns Russia about military intervention. Putin probably thinks that Obama's authority is probably as heavy as an empty vodka bottle!

Can you blame people for being critical? I can't. The president has been found wanting. He's the commander in chief, but he does not inspire confidence in the nation.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Ouze, people have every right to criticise Obama's foreign record in this regard. I like Obama, If I had been born American, I probably would have voted for him, but that's not the issue.

Let's look at Obama's track record in dealing with Putin:

1) Obama bent over backwards to appease Putin via missile defence in Eastern Europe in return for a Putin promise on dealing with Iran. Result? Nothing happened. 1-0 to Putin

2) Syria,- we all know who ran rings around Obama there, and let's not mention red lines! Result? 2-0 to Putin.

3) Obama warns Russia about military intervention. Putin probably thinks that Obama's authority is probably as heavy as an empty vodka bottle!

Can you blame people for being critical? I can't. The president has been found wanting. He's the commander in chief, but he does not inspire confidence in the nation.

The problem that all Americans have in dealing with Putin, is that he can't be overawed by either political, military, or economic muscle particularly. Russia's trade is generally not with the US, and Europe isn't about to cut off its power supplies just because Obama has a problem with Russia. Putin has no interest in photo opportunities with Obama, because he's never needed the Obama fairydust. And as he has the second must nukes in the world and the largest country in terms of landmass, military intimidation is not an option.

In other words, he's as far outside the sphere of American influence as it is possible to get. He is dependent on them for nothing whatsoever. It seems somewhat unfair to rag on Obama for 'being found wanting', when his options are essentially making tut tut noises, ignoring Putin, or declaring war. So basically, looking incompetent, looking weak, and committing suicide(of the political variety at a minimum).