Sunday, March 2, 2014

President Obama's Statement on Ukraine, February 28, 2014


This is President Obama's statement on Ukraine, on Friday, February 28, 2014.

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.
Note "can" indicates possibility and not "they are"...making it conditional. 

However, we are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside of Ukraine.
Note "however" is similar to "but", often refuting or contrasting what preceded it. 
Note also that the concern is "deep" 

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 violation 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.
Note that if Russia were to send troops in, it would be a "clear violation" of :

1.  Russia's commitment
2.  International law

Please note that "Russia's commitment" comes before "international law"

Note that sentences that begin with "And" indicate missing information.  
Note "stand" increases tension. 

Note the President's threat:  "there will be costs" for any military intervention.  

Note that the threat does not say "consequences" but "costs."  Is this cost financial, or otherwise?

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
Always note the word "with" when it is found between persons, as an indication of distancing language. 

Note the introduction of who Vice President Biden "just" spoke with, is given using the word "with", which, when found between people, Biden and the PM of the Ukraine, indicates distance. 

Here the distancing language is verified as the introduction begins, but then stops, without using the name of the Prime Minister, instead saying "the Prime Minister of Ukraine"

Please note that the name of the Prime Minister of the Ukraine is missing.   



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.
Note another change:  
1.  United States supports "his" (the unnamed Prime Minister), while
2.  "I" also commend the Ukrainian government's restraint, with the pronoun, "I" making it very strong, and personal.  

The Prime Minister does not have a name;  supported by the United States, but the "Ukrainian government" causes a more personal affirmation, with the pronoun "I" employed.  This shows an increase in confidence, while continuing distance with the unnamed Prime Minister.  





We will continue to coordinate closely with our European allies.
Note again the distancing language between "we" and the European "allies" 



We will continue to communicate directly with the Russian government.
Note the distance between "we" and the Russian government indicates distance.  This is very different than "The US and Russian governments will continue to communicate..."

And we will continue to keep all of you in the press corps and the American people informed as events develop.
Note the emphasis of "all of you" is added.  Note that "press corps" comes before "American people" suggesting, by the need to emphasize, that information may not be forthcoming, or may be only reluctantly forthcoming.  


Thanks very much.
end of statement.
What would be the Russian response to the threat of "there will be costs"?
Within 48 hours, President Putin sent troops in.  
President Obama stated that he called President Putin today:   According to a Kremlin account of the telephone conversation, President Putin called the Ukraine situation “extraordinary,” he charged that Ukrainian “ultranationalists,” supported by the U.S.-backed interim government that took over last week in Kiev, were threatening “the lives and health of Russian citizens and the many compatriots” living in Crimea.
“In the case of any further spread of violence to Eastern Ukraine and Crimea,” a statement issued by Putin’s office said, “Russia retains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population of those areas.”

20 comments:

sidewalk super said...

does he even know who is the Ukranian Prime Minister?
I heard this statement as so much nonsense rhetoric, as usual, subject to total change by tomorrow.
This person never met a microphone he didn't like, so, he was asked, he palavered.
We all are in a mess here. Big time.

Sus said...

The distance stated between our European allies.(with) bothers me. We all know this is about retaining The Ukraine's, especially Crimea's, resources for the West. Where do the European nations stand in this?

Eleni said...

Regarding Putin's statement, “the lives and health of Russian citizens and the many compatriots," did Putin specifically make reference ONLY to Crimea?

Anonymous said...

Do euro BULLYS bother u"Sus"?

Anonymous said...

Why was the outrage over a group of domestic terrorists overthrowing the democratically-elected Ukrainian president last week?

Here's info Obama should contemplate. There are 1.3 million Russians living in Crimea (65% of their population). There are 150,000 Russian sailors stationed in Crimea. Russia has kept a naval base in Crimea for 300 years. Crimea is an autonomous state according to their constitution. They have their own parliament and Prime Minister. The Crimean Prime Minister requested Russian military protection after witnessing the violent riots in the Ukraine. The Crimean parliament will vote on March 30th on whether to become a completely independent nation unless there is intense disruption fueled by the USA and the West. This is NONE of our (USA') business. LET THE CRIMEAN PEOPLE VOTE!

Trying to underhandedly encourage removal of Russia from their ONE warm water naval base they've kept for 300 years is stupid and DANGEROUS. Expecting Russia to stand by and watch a "Benghazi" occur to 1.3 million Russians living in Crimea is a symptom of severe mental illness (delusional). "Benghazis" only occur to superpowers like the USA with incompetent leadership.

Anonymous said...

^Why was there NO outrage over a group of domestic terrorists overthrowing the democratically-elected Ukrainian president last week?

Eleni said...

The relationship between Crimea and Russia appears very strong historically, and culturally. Also, based on their geographical location of Crimea, it is obvious that Russia would be reckless to part without it as one of its access ports. That part seems understandable from Russia's view point. The Benghazi occurrence appears to me to be a very different kind of situation for several reasons. One reason is there is too little non-conflicting information about what happened. Also, there does not appear to be tthe same kind of
strong non-nebulous ties that clearly seem to bind
Crimea and Russia. Benghazi seems to be a different animal altogether, and is not really relevant to what the US response should be to the Crimea situation, if a response is even needed at this point in time.

Red Ryder said...

“In the case of any further spread of violence to Eastern Ukraine and Crimea,” a statement issued by Putin’s office said, “Russia retains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population of those areas.”

This is part of a statement released by Putin's office through the Kremlin following a phone call with President Obama. He lists Crimea and Eastern Ukraine(the eastern 1/3 of the country) as his intended areas to "protect" (cough, invade, cough, cough). Putin has announced his intention clearly. It seems there is little the international community can do to pressure Russia to stop, even though they are no longer the great Soviet Bear, unless the int. community is willing to go all out (WWIII)there does not seem much that can be done but ask nicely. JMHO

Eleni said...

Russia today does not equal the past Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was COMMUNISM. Part of what that means is that it was anti-religion of any kind. I could be wrong, but Russia appears to be very Christian today-Orthodox Christian. An arguable statement can be made that some Russians are more Christian today than some Americans. It depends on who you ask. Does that change the equation about the Ukraine? Probably not, but a clearer picture about the parties involved and their interests and the stakes involved helps to better understand the tremendous volatile situation in any particular region. Disclaimer: I am an Orthodox Christian. I am also an American by birth and conviction:)

lance said...

It has been reported around the internet world the oddity that many Americans find themselves rooting more for Putin than Obama.

I don't know why it is but I feel like the American president is talking out his hat and doesn't even know the Ukrainian President's name!

Also, isn't Obama a socialist? Think how closely that is to communism.

Red Ryder said...

Hello Lance and Eleni! I agree that Russia is no longer communist and many feel President Obama has socialist leanings, if not roots, but the point of my earlier post was not political ideologies being fulfilled so much as a partially opportunistic, partially created land grab by a power with STRONG HISTORICAL ties to the area and a STRONG physical presence in the area already. The Crimea is a plum. Russia does not want to lose it's port there.
This piece of real estate has passed through many hands through the centuries because of it's value. Why let it go it go if they don't have to? If they can get back Eastern Ukraine too, why not? I follow the thinking, I think it scares a lot of people though.
So my analysis (such as it is) is that Putin won't stop at Crimea but will go on to take back Eastern Ukraine too. From my understanding via reading and talking to a few Ukrainian friends they would prefer to be Ukraine, part of Europe. Thanks.

Red Ryder said...

Reports: Russian troops poised for invasion of eastern Ukraine, despite denials
http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.577759
I'm kind of shocked that I was right.

Anonymous said...

president Obama comes across as wimpy. Putin comes across as strong. I wish our president was more like Putin in this regard. I wish our president was more like Ronald Reagan when is comes to Russia. The Russians feared Reagan and that kept them in line to à certain degree.

Eleni said...

I agree with you Red Ryder about Russia's intentions. I want to see statement analysis on Putin's direct words to further analyse exactly what Putin intends for Ukraine-all or part. CNN reported at least 3 major Russian oil pipelines running through Ukraine to Europe. As you must know, Ukrainian sentiment about being Ukrainian or Russian probably depends on who you ask- Ukrianian-west leaning, Ukrainian-east leaning. I also know people who are Ukrainian, and they are Ukrainian-west leaning. As a matter of fact, they "hate" the Russians. I know others that are Russian who lived in Ukraine, but I havent spoken to them on the issue, yet.

Eleni said...

Red Ryder, thanks for the link, i will read it now.

Red Ryder said...

Eleni, you are right! It depends on where a persons allegiances lie whether they will be pro invasion or not. I was reading one fellow's comments whose father is Russian and mother is Ukranian~he is quite conflicted over events in his homeland.
The world is a different place than it was in the '80's. President Obama is limited in strong actions he can take~he can't go to war over this and he has to have the rest of the international community participate in any action. It's a mess.

Eleni said...

I tried to write down a translation of Putin's statement today as reported by CNN today. I did not hear the question, but here is Putin's statement according to the translator (and as best as I could understand the translator, minus all the translators 'eh' s):

"No, I am not worried because we are not going to go to war for the Ukraine, but Ukraine has the army. I want you to understand clearly, if we do this it will only be to protect local people; and let them only dare shoot women and children."




It is a mess, a volatile mess. I would be surprised if Putin did nothing in regards to Crimea givent he compelling geopolitical context of the situation. I hope Obama is not surprised by Putin's actions or that of Merkel's actions, or inactions. Germany is heavily dependant on Russian oil.

Nic said...

Red Ryder, I agree it's all about the Port. What is happening right now is strategic and IMO, it's part of a long-term plan that hinges on 'power'. Obama doesn't scare him (reference the earlier "stand down" warning.) Hearing that, I envision looking down the barrel of a gun.

He's got an arsenal of weapons (nuclear being part of it,) and he isn't afraid to use them. If there was such thing as a present day anti-Christ, IMO, he would be it.

We are witnessing a cold war.

Nic said...

Red Ryder, I agree it's all about the Port. What is happening right now is strategic and IMO, it's part of a long-term plan that hinges on 'power'. Obama doesn't scare him (reference the earlier "stand down" warning.) Hearing that, I envision looking down the barrel of a gun.

He's got an arsenal of weapons (nuclear being part of it,) and he isn't afraid to use them. If there was such thing as a present day anti-Christ, IMO, he would be it.

We are witnessing a cold war.

Nic said...

Red Ryder, I agree it's all about the Port. What is happening right now is strategic and IMO, it's part of a long-term plan that hinges on 'power'. Obama doesn't scare him (reference the earlier "stand down" warning.) Hearing that, I envision looking down the barrel of a gun.

He's got an arsenal of weapons (nuclear being part of it,) and he isn't afraid to use them. If there was such thing as a present day anti-Christ, IMO, he would be it.

We are witnessing a cold war.