UN APPOINTS SARAH PALIN TO MEDIATE UKRAINE CRISIS
Mar 02, 2014| The Daily Currant
The United Nations has appointed Sarah Palin as a special envoy to Ukraine, hoping she can help mediate a solution to the growing geopolitical crisis in that country.
According to sources close to the situation, Palin and a team of international crisis experts will fly to Kiev tonight to meet with Ukrainian officials before moving on to Moscow to negotiate a final settlement with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin over the fate of the disputed Crimea region.
The surprising selection comes just days after Palin boasted on Facebook that she had accurately predicted Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in a 2008 speech.
In an exclusive interview, U.N. President Ban Ki-Moon said he chose Palin because of her impressive first-hand knowledge of the region and hopes she can facilitate a dialogue that avoids war.
“When all the experts said Putin would never invade Ukraine, only Sarah Palin had the courage to challenge conventional wisdom,” he explains. “Clearly this woman is some sort of a genius or something. We can’t let her skills go unused.
“This is a very unusual crisis, and we need to think outside the box. One of my advisers suggested this solution, and I felt it was a risk worth taking. Let’s throw Palin into the mix and see what she can do.”
Russia effectively invaded the Ukrainian region of Crimea last week after a pro-European revolution in Kiev threw out President Viktor Yanukovych, a corrupt despot many viewed as a puppet of Moscow.
The peninsula was long in Russian territory, and was only transferred to Ukraine in 1954. The majority of Crimea's population is still ethnically Russian and its warm water ports hold deep strategic significance for the Russian Navy.
Although not usually thought of as a foreign policy expert, Palin did accurately forecast these events in 2008 when at a campaign event she was quoted as saying that Obama’s weakness towards Moscow was “the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next.”
Her comments were ridiculed by many, including Foreign Policy magazine, which labeled them “strange” and “far fetched.” Not content to say I-told-you-so, Palin is now hoping to turn her new-found credibility into meaningful action.
“I’m just hoping to bring a little Wasilla main street to folks over there in Russia,” she says. “Someone needs to go over there and teach Mr. Putin that he can’t be bossing these nice Ukrainese people around.
“Russia’s invasion of Crimea is a gross violation of international law. What kind of country invades another country that hasn't attacked it first? I mean, who does that?”
Although the pick has already attracted fierce criticism and disdain around the world, Secretary Ban is confident that he’s chosen the right woman for the task.
“If it’s one thing I know about Sarah Palin, it’s that she never quits a job half-way through. I believe she can end this crisis once and for all,” he asserts.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
UKRAINE: WHAT A DIFFERENCE PARTISANSHIP MAKES
Mar 2, 2014 | DORIAN DE WIND | Military Affairs Columnist
AS RUSSIAN TROOPS ENTERED NEIGHBORING TERRITORY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN AN ADDRESS TO THE NATION, EXPRESSED HIS DEEP CONCERN AT REPORTS THAT RUSSIAN TROOPS HAVE “INVADED A SOVEREIGN NEIGHBORING STATE.” “SUCH AN ACTION IS UNACCEPTABLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY,” THE PRESIDENT SAID.
REFERRING TO HOW RUSSIA’S ACTIONS HAVE RAISED SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT ITS INTENTIONS IN THE REGION, THE PRESIDENT SAID, “THESE ACTIONS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED RUSSIA’S STANDING IN THE WORLD. AND THESE ACTIONS JEOPARDIZE RUSSIANS’ RELATIONS — RUSSIA’S RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE. IT IS TIME FOR RUSSIA TO BE TRUE TO ITS WORD AND TO ACT TO END THIS CRISIS.”
NBC NEWS REPORTED THAT, WHILE WAITING FOR THE RESULTS OF A EUROPEAN UNION INITIATIVE, THE ADMINISTRATION AND ITS ALLIES ARE DEBATING WAYS TO PUNISH RUSSIA FOR ITS INVASION, INCLUDING EXPELLING MOSCOW FROM AN EXCLUSIVE CLUB OF WEALTHY NATIONS AND CANCELING AN UPCOMING JOINT NATO-RUSSIA MILITARY EXERCISE AND THAT THE PRESIDENT “AND HIS TOP AIDES ARE ENGAGED IN URGENT CONSULTATIONS WITH EUROPEAN AND OTHER NATIONS OVER HOW BEST TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR FIERCE CONDEMNATION OF THE RUSSIAN OPERATION.”
NBC ALSO REPORTED THAT “IN THE MEDIUM TERM, THE UNITED STATES AND ITS PARTNERS IN THE GROUP OF SEVEN, OR G-7, THE CLUB OF THE WORLD’S LEADING INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS THAT ALSO INCLUDES BRITAIN, CANADA, FRANCE, GERMANY, ITALY AND JAPAN, ARE DEBATING WHETHER TO EFFECTIVELY DISBAND WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE G-8, WHICH INCORPORATES RUSSIA, BY THROWING MOSCOW OUT, THE OFFICIALS SAID.” OFFICIALS ALSO SAID, “RUSSIA’S PENDING MEMBERSHIP IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION MIGHT ALSO BE AFFECTED.” HOWEVER, “[T]HE OFFICIALS SPOKE ON CONDITION OF ANONYMITY BECAUSE NO DECISIONS HAVE YET BEEN MADE AND CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES INVOLVED WERE STILL UNDER WAY.”
Meanwhile, as fellow blogger Janet Shan points out, Conservative pundits are wasting no time in slamming President Obama’s handling of the Ukraine crisis.
They are bashing the president for being “all talk and no action,” and are ridiculing his statements of “deep concern” and of “unacceptability” of the Russian actions that “jeopardize” Russians’ relations with the United States and Europe.
On Special Report, Charles Krauthammer explains that when the president says that the United States will stand with the international community he really means that “we are going to negotiate with a dozen other countries who will water down the statement” and that when the president affirms that there will be costs: “meaning in making a statement not even imposing a cost, but in making a statement about imposing a cost — for any military intervention” — whatever that means.
“What [the president is] saying is we’re not really going to do anything and we’re telling the world,” Krauthammer says.
AT THIS POINT I HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT THE PRESIDENT MAKING THE REMARKS, ABOVE, ABOUT THE RUSSIAN INVASION IS NOT PRESIDENT OBAMA BUT RATHER PRESIDENT BUSH IN AUGUST 2008, DURING THE RUSSIAN INVASION OF GEORGIA.
However, Krauthammer’s remarks are indeed Krauthammer’s and are directed not at his ideological idol, President Bush, but rather at his favorite punching bag, President Obama, and the comments are in reference to the present Russian military intervention in Ukraine.
I really don’t know what Krauthammer had to say about President Bush’s “deep concern,” “fierce condemnation” and his desire to consult, confer and negotiate “with a dozen other countries” while Russian tanks were rumbling into the city of Gori and thrusting deep into Georgian territory and while, according to Georgian officials, “Gori was looted and bombed by the Russians.”
I don’t know what Krauthammer had to say about Bush debating with allies on “ways to punish Russia for its invasion of Georgia, including expelling Moscow from an exclusive club of wealthy nations and canceling an upcoming joint NATO-Russia military exercise” while “waiting for the results of a European Union initiative led by French President Nicholas Sarkozy” and while Georgia was being trampled by Russian tanks and soldiers.
Today, nearly six years later, Russian troops remain in Georgia.
Mind you, all the presidential “deep concern” and cautionary statements were after “five days of fierce fighting that may have [already] killed 2,000 people” in Georgia. Not — as we are now — at the beginning of a Russian military intervention, where the Obama administration has already discussed a broad range of costs to the Russians — costs and measures that Krauthammer and his colleagues are berating in advance.
Finally, it has just been reported that Secretary of State John F. Kerry will visit Kiev on Tuesday to show support for the new leadership there in the face of Russian military intervention.
One wonders how Krauthammer will (mis)characterize this latest Obama administration action.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
" another red line."
How about another bread line, albeit a worthless, spineless joke....hehehehehehe.
Leading again from behind or from "consequences"?....hmmmmmm, I wonder what the consequences will be.
You apparently don't get it, and your political biases, prejudices, and myopia are, perhaps, getting in the way of your 'getting it'.
The 'it' is: The US's mucking in the affairs of sovereigns is a profit center for many in America. Ukraine is no different.
If you're not one of the many, too bad for you.
As for LMAO: Yes, there's a of laughing underway, but it's on the way to the bank.
Another 'it' is: Some matters are way above politics. And, if you're blinded by politics, you never get the 'it'.
Jus - So what are the acceptable reasons that countries muck in the affaires of other countries? Ya think Russia is in it for the scenery? Economics and national defense. Don't ya think that Russia has been doing a lot more mucking in that region over the years then Western Europe? The legitimacy of Russia's historical claim?