What is/are these serious repurcussions John Kerry speaks of?
Asked by
Cruiser (
40454
)
March 13th, 2014
A show down is brewing in the Ukraine as John Kerry has drawn a line in the sand saying
“There will be a response of some kind to the referendum itself,” Kerry said. “If there is no sign [from Russia] of any capacity to respond to this issue… there will be a very serious series of steps on Monday.”
I feel as though I need an interpreter to spell out just what Kerry meant by his words. Any Jellies here that can take a stab at explaining what a “very serious series of steps on Monday” means?? What exactly is Russia up against if they do not stop bullying Ukraine and what are we in the US specifically prepared to do to convince Russia they have to stop this nonsense and back off?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
22 Answers
Economic and financial sanctions. Basically people will not have permission to do trade or business between sanctioned countries.
It would be foolhardy to provide specifics as part of the diplomacy to get Russia to back off, so Kerry is purposefully vague.
@talljasperman has it in essence. The Russian Plutocrats are more concerned about lack of access to funding because the US and the EU may impose sanctions.
Who knows. Politicians do this all the time. They talk in incompetent, incoherent, and vague sentences trying to scare the public. It’s ridiculous.
talljasperman is most likely right. It will be sanctions like we have imposed on tons of other countries for decades. . It is pretty safe to say that war isn’t on the table.
Perhaps we should send in troops without insignia as well. Let ‘em sort that one out.
No more Scoobie snacks for the Ruskies.
Most likely sanctions that won’t hurt them as much as we want them to.
It’s hard for me to take anything seriously that Herman Munster John Kerry says.
Planetary Core Detonator.
Oh wait, that is what we would do.
Yawn, the whole thing will blow over in a few weeks of pointless posturing & Russian sabre rattling.
My concern is we spoke in vague terms over Syria and lost serious street cred over saying shit and not backing it up. I know what some of the most serious sanctions are and that is cutting off the money supply to and though Russian owned banks. Makes obvious sense to do as it would really cripple Russia but what is not so obvious it would also affect many countries that are really hurting economically and we then would be labeled as a bigger bully than Russia for being so insensitive to the plight of these countries.
Putin is being very specific with this words and actions by making it perfectly clear he is taking Crimea and try and stop me and all we do is spout off ” incompetent, incoherent, and vague sentences”?? I also realize it is not just up to us to decide what to do to stop Russia here and the more time goes by with nothing more than vague statements I am getting the feeling Russia just got a little bigger.
So, what is your solution?
Do as Jon Stewart suggests and take over Moldovia and refuse to give it back?
What Kerry meant is that Obama will take his shirt off and wrestle a shirtless Putin… oh lord we’re screwed!
Hope Obama knows what he’s letting himself in for, Putin being a gay porn star & all
Probably a “strongly worded letter”.
Economic, diplomatic sanctions.
John Kerry is pro-intervention like McCain but Obama will not back that up. I feel that the president has taken this country down the wrong road, by wimping out on Syria, and he will do the same on Ukraine. (Now I voted for and supported Obama mind you. I’m not by any stretch a Republican. Consider myself Independent).
Russia is massing armor on the Crimean border…tanks… Why do they need this? The Ukrainian army is weak.
It looks like they are considering moving into eastern Ukraine at some point. Lavrov already lied to Kerry about their plans to annex Crimea, so don’t trust anything the Russian diplomats say.
Putin in fact wants to rebuild the old Soviet Union, make no mistake about it.This is what makes Estonia, Poland, Europe as a whole, nervous…
During the Cold War Cruiser, the US/NATO policy with a conflict in Europe was that US/NATO forces (greatly outnumbered, we’re talking less than a division facing a possible 150 divisions the Soviets could mobilize) would serve as a type of “fire break”... They’d engage the enemy and fall back, and then the west would utilize tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield to stop a Soviet advance.
There’s no other way to stop an overwhelming Russian force on their own ground.
Problem with that now is that ALL US/NATO tactical nuclear weapons have been pulled from the European theater to comply with treaty stipulations.
So the brass knows that we have no effective way of stopping a Russian advance now. They can pretty much do whatever they want and you won’t see any type of military response until they start threatening NATO member nations openly.
The Crimean Peninsula has been of strategic importance to Russia, especially the Black Sea Fleet, since imperial times. I have heard comparisons made with the importance of the Panama Canal to the United States.
@Yetanotheruser and as I recall, the US felt the need to invade Panama again in 1989 when they felt their interests threatened.
I believe the Black Sea is Russia’s only warm water port (open to navigation in winter)...
Still, that’s no reason for taking over one’s neighbors. We haven’t invaded Mexico just to protect all that Gulf Shore oil drilling that goes on down in the vicinity…
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
