Skip to comments.Is Mob Rule in Ukraine in America’s Interest?
Posted on 02/04/2014 12:54:09 AM PST by cunning_fish
Despite our endless blather about democracy, we Americans seem to be able to put our devotion to democratic principles on the shelf, when they get in the way of our New World Order. In 2012, in the presidential election in Egypt, Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood won in a landslide. President Obama hailed the outcome. One year later, the Egyptian army ousted and arrested Morsi and gunned down a thousand members of his brotherhood. The coup was countenanced by John Kerry who explained that the Egyptian army was restoring democracy.
Comes now the turn of Ukraine.
In 2010, Viktor Yanukovych, in what neutral observers called a free and fair election, was chosen president. His term ends in 2015. Yet since November, protesters have occupied Maidan Square in Kiev, battling police, and howling for Yanukovychs resignation. The United States appears now to be collaborating with Europe in bringing about the neutering or overthrow of that democratically elected government. Military coups, a la Cairo, and mob uprisings, a la Kievare these now legitimate weapons in the arsenal of democracy?
What did Yanukovych do to deserve ouster by the street? He chose Russia over Europe.
In the competition between Vladimir Putin and the European Union over whose economic association to join, Yanukovych was betrothed to the EU. But after an offer of $15 billion from Putin, and a cut in fuel prices to his country, Yanukovych jilted the EU and ran off with Russia. Yanukovych felt he could not turn down Putins offer.
Western Ukraine, which favors the EU, was enraged. So out came the protesters to bring down the president. And into Kiev flew John McCain to declare our solidarity with the demonstrators.
Kerry has now joined McCain in meddling
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
I don’t recall Morsi winning in a “landslide.”
FWIW, I have no dogs in this fight, and hate to see what is happening...
Why do these people think that democracy has any relevance to Islam? It does not. The two systems are utterly incompatible.
What would the Washington, D.C. police do if such a photo is taken there, during a riot? What should it do, if for a moment we imagine that their duty is to serve and protect?
If the reports are truthful enough, Ukraine is experiencing an uprising. Note, however, that it does not mean that more than 50% of Ukrainians are welcoming the events. All uprisings, revolts, putches are done by a tiny but well organized minority. In Egypt, for example, you can count on fingers of one hand all the key players in Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's takeover. It's all but impossible to organize large masses of people, and most of them will only slow you down (who wants a typical old man, or a typical housewife, on barricades, when their own life and welfare are not even remotely affected?)
Considering that the protesters are not representing anyone but themselves, and considering that nobody can tell who supports who, it has to be concluded that those events are highly undemocratic. Did they try nonviolent methods first, like a general strike? That should have been easy to organize... if only their ideas are supported by the majority. Most likely they aren't. In Eastern Ukraine locals are, reportedly, forming an anti-mob mob and, together with the police, volunteer to protect their government offices.
Those events are eerily similar to events that transpired in 1917 in St. Petersberg, Russia. There a tiny but educated and organized minority was able to attack and destroy the semi-democratically elected government when it was weak and unable to defend itself. A bloody dictator came to power on that day. If this Ukrainian revolt succeeds, who will be the dictator of Ukraine? Power is not gained by such harsh methods to simply relinquish it. Even if some idealists enter the revolution with such foolish thoughts, there is always someone who wants power - and in a revolution they have easy access to it. Who, in any normally functioning society, would let a barely literate Joseph Stalin to rule the country? He came and took the power when it was ready for taking.
The political struggle in the Ukraine is between pro-Russian and Pro-Western factions, with Putin making blunt threats and promises so as to attach the Ukraine firmly to Russia. I am at a loss to see why Buchanan would favor Putin and Russia over the West and scorn the pro-Western crowds by using terms that are reminiscent of Tory disdain for American colonial protesters.
Pat is a professional isolationist. He doesn't care which side prevails in the Ukraine. His only interest is that we not involve ourselves.
>>>Pat is a professional isolationist. He doesn’t care which side prevails in the Ukraine. His only interest is that we not involve ourselves.<<<
Sometimes it makes sense, isn’t it?
All too true. Pat has so thoroughly embraced isolationism that he cannot consider any foreign policy issue on the merits.
His point is that the U.S. claims to stand for democracy. Ukraine’s president was freely and fairly elected. Now a small minority mob is trying to overthrow the government. Now here we come to take the side of the mob against a democratically elected government.
The Ukrainian mob is not akin to 1776 American colonialists.
Even so, why should we involve ourselves in this fight? Let the EU involve themselves if it is in their interests to do so.
A telling comparison.
The EU recently told the UK they didn't have enough people on welfare.
I can't see the EU rushing to protect the Ukraine if its attacked by Russian military.
Yanukovich is a convicted criminal and a Russian toady. Ukrainians self identify as Ukrainians not Russo Ukrainians. They know that going back into Russia’s orbit means more repression corruption and exploitation
They want a trade agreement with the EU not to join it. They have made a lot of progress since partition and don’t want to go back
A freely-and-fairly-elected convicted criminal and Russian toady.
anything else counters the narrative after all.
Freely and Fairly? Hardly. If so free why is his opponent Yulia Timoshenko rotting in jail on a trumped up corruption charge.
By "America", do you mean George Soros, Goldman Sachs, and Lutheran Refugee and Social Services, or do you mean what BOR refers to as "the folks"?
Worse, Putin and a large segment of opinion in Russia regard Ukrainian independence as a mistake to be rectified. Russian government officials have suggested annexing the pro-Russian portions of the Ukraine, and Russian policy is to force the Ukraine to subordinate itself to Russia and its economic and political interests.
The protests against Yanukovych began with his sudden refusal to sign a previously negotiated and settled association agreement with Europe in favor of alignment with Russia. This marked an acceptance of the designs on the Ukraine by Putin and the predatory and corrupt oligarchs allied with him.
The protests against Yanukovych and this menacing turn in policy were remarkably peaceful but, when they persisted and grew, Yanukovych turned to brutal police and paramilitary tactics, violence from thugs allied with the government, and the passage of laws that effectively criminalized the opposition.
Although those laws were recently repealed after the protests escalated, the initial passage of those laws and continued threats made clear that Yanukovych and his party regard the opposition as subject to suppression if they can get away with it. From that standpoint of many of the protesters, Yanukovych's continued tenure in office thus is a threat to Ukrainian national independence and democracy.
In this context, it is an error to regard Yanukovych as a democrat beleaguered by rabid, anti-government protesters. Facts matter, and it is the protesters who most genuinely represent Ukrainian democracy and the country's national interests.
It was a lot more than just that. He also centralized Presidential power absent Parliment. He used the Barkut as his personal storm trooper squad. He outlawed a number of forms of peaceful protest making the violent protests necessary. And yeah, sided with Russia over the prevailing political tide towards more economic freedom in the deal with the EU...
But let's minimize that to "they don't like Russia"... Dumbass...
And then there is that... Timoshenko is a political prisoner. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ok... She’s hot too, and smart, but... Dang. Now I lost my train of thought. ;-)
Add to your list that Yanukovych (with his own felony record and jail time) used trumped-up charges to jail his main opposition, Yulia Tymoshenko.
Joseph Stalin?...or the obamanation???.....
in the American revolution, roughly about a third of people wanted a revolution, a third didn't care either way and a third backed the British rule....
you don't need a majority to take over....
and besides, I no longer trust democracy...used to....want to....but I just don't trust it...not here in America anyway....our population has proven time and again (kardashians?..lady gaga...obama...moosechel....justin bieber..omphrah) that it has absolutely no common sense, or horse sense and not one bit of morality or ethics nor integrity...let alone patriotism....
It does not matter which candidate wins the elections if you control the list of candidates. And this list is controlled. Just recall how Herman Cain was taken out.