Victoria Nuland, the woman who was caught on the leaked tape saying "F*ck the EU", essentially because the EU was not quite as enthusiastic about supporting further action, was the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland

Obama has a lot of stuff he has to deal with on a daily basis - listening to the audio, it would make sense that she is calling the shots on a daily basis. you can hear her saying that she is going to arrange biden to give an "attaboy" which is basically "i need a guy in a leadership role to appear to bless this" not that biden is actually making any substantive decisions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o

Her brother-in-law came up with Bush's "surge" strategy in 2007, her husband was a foreign policy advisor to mccain in 2008. i would guess that's not the full extent of their republican advisory work but that's all i found in a minute or two on wikipedia.

So, you're left with one lowly ranking woman who you think is some mastermind of an evil cabal. "Her brother-in-law came up with Bush's "surge" strategy in 2007"

TOTALLY irrelevant here. Logical fallacy violated. Non sequitor.

EDIT: Seriously, you think Victoria Nuland, by herself, is pulling the strings of the American foreign policy?

How is Victoria Nuland "low ranking"? You realize the title "secretary" does not mean they answer phones and schedule appointments?

Here's the state department org chart.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/99494.htm

The assistant secretary position she holds is responsible for that area, and two links below the secretary of state.

The Crimea was part of Russia until 1954. there is a very large Russian military base there. In 1992 the Ukrainian government ceded that the Crimea was almost completely autonomous of Ukraine.

How is Russia invading when it already has a massive military base there, in the Crimea, which was Russian until 1954?

Crimea is legally, according to international law and recognized by everyone but Russia, part of Ukraine. You mean Crimea was part of the RSFSR until 1954, not the Russian Federation.

Being legalistic in this circumstance ignores what Crimea means to Russia, and how the majority of Crimea is ethnically Russian. The background of the region matters for realizing how much Russia cares about Crimea, and therefore how to deal with it in this situation.

Okay, if you're willing to throw the law and legalities aside, then...you're nothing more than a thug, and/or an apologist for them.

No, I'm being realistic about what it means to push Russia on this point. They're serious about Crimea, handling this well will require consideration.

The law matters, yes. And so does how Russia feels about Crimea. Both need to be considered.

Japanese feel strongly about Kunashir too. But you don't see them sending in the military. I think thuggish behavior means you should consider their feelings less, not more. Get the military out, then talk about feelings.

It's brinksmanship of the most professional kind, there's no doubt about that. Russia can push harder than the US in this case. But of course the world needs to push back, I'm not saying take it lying down.

However, I will be surprised if Russia doesn't retain control of Crimea.

> How is Russia invading when it already has a massive military base there, in the Crimea, which was Russian until 1954?

The same way the US would have been invading if it invaded the Phillipines in 1991, where it had a massive military base and which had been American up until 1946. Neither "this was our territory ~50 years ago" nor "we have a massive military base in this territory" gives a country permission to invade and occupy a territory.

Are you trolling or can't comprehend the difference between having a military base on the territory and taking over that territory completely?

It might be worth noting that Crimea is actually the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. They have their own government, etc. They are still under the Ukraine umbrella, sure.