Skip to comments.Rep. Kinzinger: Ukraine Election Can't Be 'Last Step' for US, EU
Posted on 05/27/2014 4:16:20 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of the more vocal Republican members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Newsmax he is "cautiously optimistic" about the outcome of Sunday's presidential election in Ukraine.
But Kinzinger quickly added that the landslide election of billionaire "chocolate king" Petro Poroshenko "can't be the last step" for the United States and the European Union in dealing with Ukraine. ....
A decorated U.S. Air Force veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, Kinzinger spoke to Newsmax after participating in Memorial Day ceremonies on Monday in Braidwood, Illinois.
"Poroshenko has been on a lot of different sides in Ukrainian politics, and I understand that," said Kinzinger, recalling how the president-elect once served in the regime of deposed pro-Kremlin President Viktor Yanukovych and later supported demonstrations by the Alliance Maidan marchers who were key to bringing down Yanukovych earlier this year.
Noting the significance of Poroshenko's election with a resounding 55 percent of the vote in a crowded field of candidates, Kinzinger said, "We cannot let this moment pass. The Russians surely won't back off, so it's very important we stay united with Poroshenko and help bring Ukraine into the Western fold.
"Ukraine has to stay on our radar, and we can't let our guard down," he said.
By that, Kinzinger explained, he means "strengthening U.S. ties with Ukraine and encouraging stronger Ukrainian ties to Europe. It's time to step up. We've defeated Russian Communism but not Russian nationalism."
Although Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a message of de-escalation regarding Eastern Ukraine, Kinzinger believes "the Russian military is still there disguised as separatists. The Ukrainian separatists don't have weapons like that. Putin is trying to lure the West into a false sense of security so he can re-integrate Ukraine into Russia through economic and political power."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
It seems as if our recent foreign policy doctrine is based not on peace which benefits everyone, but upon instigating and maintaining constant tensions which prevent any other country from gaining "too much" power. Why else would the United States care who influences whom in the backwaters of Eastern Europe? Why else would the United States bankrupt itself by taking a role (as sugar daddy if not actually shooting) in nearly every dispute around the world? Cui bono? Who benefits from this constant tension? And how?
Russian nationalism is not necessarily an inherently bad thing, it’s just bad for the USA because Russia’s leadership is so hostile to the USA and supports all our communist enemies around the world and is helping Iran get a nuke to wipe Israel off the map.
Ukrainian nationalism is not so good for Russia, but it’s great for the USA. It’s in our interests to support our Ukrainian nationalist friends against our Russian nationalist enemies.
I don't see how we have any interest in the affairs of friends or enemies along the Black Sea. But we obviously derive some benefit from stirring the pot there. Perhaps it is to maintain the Petrodollar by preventing any other medium of exchange for oil. That certainly explains why we whacked Gaddafi, whose ten years of good behavior was negated by his intention to denominate North African oil in gold dinars. No other explanation makes sense for a near-bankrupt power that refuses to rein in spending or even new commitments...