Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Obama condemns Ukraine violence; warns of consequences
For several months the citizens of Ukraine have been protesting and more recently these protests have become violent and even deadly. Citizens were originally upset when President Viktor Yanukovych decided to sign a trade deal with Russia instead of the European Union. This decision has outraged the citizens of Ukraine and since then they have been protesting against President Yanukovych. Just this past week though anti-protest laws went into effect and protests escalated into street brawls leaving 26 dead. Since these actions, President Obama and the U.S. government have taken into serious consideration the possibility of sanctioning Ukraine and potentially taking "other steps" in order to create an environment, in Ukraine, where the government and its people can peacefully compromise on the issues at hand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nothing is worse than unnecessary violence. Therefore, I applaud the US's efforts to encourage a more peaceful form of communication between the Ukrainian protestors and their government. If these tactics do not work, however, I think it will be interesting to see (as the journalist noted) whether or not the military will support the protestors by staying in their barracks or the government by going out to fight. Either the way I hope the US does not become much more involved in this conflict.
ReplyDeleteWhile Obama should, of course, condemn the violent crackdowns and abridgment of the freedoms of the Ukrainian people, I am not sure how much the United States should get involved outside of that. The last time the United States became involved to the point where intervention could have occurred (Syria) with a Russian ally, the United States was “outmaneuvered” (as Mitt Romney said) by the Russians. This made a fool of the United States. It would only further damage the prestige of the United States for another –such incident to occur.
ReplyDeleteThe Ukrainian military has stayed out of the political conflict thus far, even after the president was ousted and the government dismantled by Parliament yesterday. Even though Obama had advocated for this, I doubt it was his warnings that caused the military to standby. He was, however, correct in saying the Ukrainians should "determine their own destiny." In light of recent events, I believe they have. With no clear leader emerging, I'm worried Ukraine will plunge into an even more violent state.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCondemning the Ukrainian violent crackdown is good of course, except Obama has said the same bs every time a new violent demonstrations come around. I think though, it's very important for the Western countries to keep an eye on Russia in this situation. As Putin hopes to elevate Russia's power on the international stage, "helping" Ukraine might seem very tempting, and the next step to a more powerful Russia, especially now that the president of Ukraine has fled. No one is looking for a second Cold War, nor a potential third World War if it resulted to such measures.
I don't think that the US should be playing such a big role in the Ukranian protests as it has been. This violence is coming from an independent country in Europe, so why should we feel the need to threaten their government over issues in their own country? Although, like Emily Meyer said, "nothing is worse than unnecessary violence", this could potentially get us into some. I think it's best to watch the Ukranian protests from afar on this one.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. wants to go play world police officer again, and that hasn't always been our best option. In the 70's with Vietnam and again with the war on terror in Afghanistan. We have plenty of stuff going on already, and we have no need to go picking more fights than we need to be. I understand the idea of humanity and the Ukrainian government is wrong, and I agree with that, but can another country go take this one for us.
ReplyDeletei will never understand why the United States always feels obligated to protect the world and preach democracy. I can understand to a certain extent why we do it, but after awhile i think it just gets repetitive. we shouldnt be sacrificing our troops for other country's needs, (unless dire circumstances). We dont need to be the world police.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Steve. Time and time again the United States is stepping in to conflicts that have absolutely nothing to do with us. Some situations are obviously understandable, but using DJ's examples of Afghanistan and Vietnam, we need to back off. Ukraine can't be in turmoil forever, I feel like we should just let the people settle down and keep our hands out of this one.
ReplyDeleteThe US needs to be cautious about getting involved in any capacity in Ukraine. Recent protests and revolutions (Egypt) have shown us that even if the "people" can decide for themselves and overthrow their current government, the new system that is put in place may not actually reflect the wishes of all people. It's essential to remember that every country is composed of as many different viewpoints as there are people, and that any system replacing an overthrown government will have its detractors among the nation's citizens.
ReplyDeleteUsually, I applaud the fact that, as Stephen said America is the world police. However, I agree with Stephen in this instance that America should refrain from using military intervention. That would make things ten times worse because then Russia would also put its troops in Ukraine. This issue should be solved diplomatically between the US, Ukraine, and Russia. Therefore, all interests are protected and everyone leaves happy.
ReplyDeleteI think the military (from any country) should stay out of the conflict for as long as possible. There is not currently a need for the military to step in and the government should also no be attacking peaceful protesters. Although we as Americans enjoy the right to protest peacefully, many other countries do not, although they should.
ReplyDelete