March 1, 2014
President Obama delivered a brief press statement today
in which he stated that rumors about Russian military activity in Crimea were
“deeply disturbing” to the United States. He then drew dangerous red lines that
threaten a serious international military conflict.
What is the backdrop to the president’s
warning?
Post-coup Kiev is not Ukraine — even
the media has noted that Ukraine is deeply divided — and therefore it should
have been expected that regions of Ukraine with a vast majority of Russians and
Russian speakers would be less enthusiastic over the West’s picks to head up
the country.
Nevertheless, what is good for the
goose is definitely not good for the gander in the eyes of US foreign policy.
Where the occupation of parliament in Kiev by the West-backed rebels was hailed
by the US and EU as an expression of the people’s will, a similar occupation of
the autonomous parliament in Crimea is condemned as an anti-democratic move.
Suddenly “protesters” become “gunmen” in the US media and in statements by US
politicians. The “mini-Maidan” in Crimea must be crushed because the people
there have made the wrong choice according to Washington. They prefer to remain
close to Russia, which is not acceptable to the West.
However Crimea and indeed much of
eastern Ukraine is Russian and Russian-speaking. The breakaway of economic
basket-case western Ukraine populated by Ukrainians, Poles, and others is of
less concern to Russia than the threatened suppression of the Russian speaking
east (one of the first acts of the new Ukrainian parliament was to overturn
laws permitting the use of minority languages in Ukraine). Russia does have an
interest in protect its citizens living in neighboring countries, as we saw in
South Ossetia in 2008. This is not unique. The US has a similar policy when it
comes to protecting Americans abroad.
Whether actual Russian troops are
deployed outside their designated areas near the Russian naval facilities is a
subject of some speculation. The new Ukrainian “authorities” have much
incentive to exaggerate the Russian threat to excite the likes of John “we’re
all Ukrainians now” McCain. Their popularity beyond the small Independence
Square in Kiev is miniscule and they are no doubt bracing for a backlash from a
nation bewildered by events of the past two weeks.
Josh Rogin of the Daily Beast speculates
that the military-looking personnel spotted around Crimea may in fact be a
private security force contracted by Viktor Yanukovich, who having not been
impeached according to the Ukrainian constitution still
legally retains his office — despite US and EU claims. The theory goes that
Yanukovich is preparing for a return to Ukraine in Crimea from where he will
struggle to regain control. Whatever the truth, Russia denies
claims that its troops are operating outside areas permitted by treaty.
Into this incredibly tense mix swaggers
President Barack Obama and his foreign policy team.
In today’s press conference the
president continued the use of highly provocative and ambiguous terms to
suggest a US military escalation should certain events transpire. In Syria the
red line was the use of chemical weapons; in Ukraine it is Russian military
involvement, even presumably to protect Russian citizens trapped in a violent
revolution.
Said Obama today:
The United States will stand with the
international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military
intervention in Ukraine.
“Costs” is a word that appears
intentionally ambiguous while at the same time threatening.
Obama further warns that Ukraine’s
future “must be determined by the Ukrainian people,” skipping over the fact
that his senior foreign policy officials have been engaged
in manipulation of events while on Ukrainian soil from before the initial
November protests.
Obama’s ambassador to the UN, Samantha
Power, restates
(by Tweet) Obama’s threat in far starker and more confrontational terms this
evening:
We call on Russia to pull back military
forces being built up in region.
Is “we” the entire US government with
the implied force of the US military? Or are her Twitter fingers getting
overly-excited at the prospect of another US military intervention overseas?
Does she speak for President Obama in this statement?
The Obama Administration is by hubris
slouching the US toward a military conflict with Russia. It is time to turn it
down several notches, and let us hope that cooler heads than those of McCain
and Power and Rice and Nuland can prevail. Otherwise…
Copyright © 2014 by LewRockwell.com Permission to reprint in
whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are
given.
Previous article by Daniel McAdams: She Lies
- States Act Like States, Aggressing, and Statesmen Lie Routinely
- When Is a Government A Legitimate Authority?
- And Americans Are Increasingly Figuring It Out
- A Brilliant Libertarian Video
- Russian Parliament Approves Use of Military in Ukraine, Specifically Crimea
- How Does the U.S. Choose Its Friends and Enemies?
- Gangster Obama Warns Gangster Putin
- The Ugandan Anti-Gay Law and Foreign Aid
- Forced Discrimination
- Obama Draws Red Lines As World Lurches Toward War
· Podcasts
- Bill Sardi: Defending Health Against the Government
- Lew Rockwell: the NY Times Doesn’t Like Me
- Lew Rockwell: The Truth Shall Make Us Free
- Ralph Weber: Against Fascist Healthcare
- John Denson: My Two Famous Cousins in WWII
Copyright ©
2014 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly
granted, provided full credit and a live link are provided.
No comments:
Post a Comment