Posted on 02/17/2015 6:22:28 AM PST by Kaslin
Hopefully, the shaky truce between Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Petro Poroshenko, brokered in Minsk by Angela Merkel, will hold.
For nothing good, but much evil, could come of broadening and lengthening this war that has cost the lives of 5,400 Ukrainians.
The longer it goes on, the greater the casualties, the more land Ukraine will lose, and the greater the likelihood Kiev will end up an amputated and bankrupt republic, a dependency the size of France on the doorstep of Europe.
Had no truce been achieved, 8,000 Ukrainian troops trapped in the Debaltseve pocket could have been forced to surrender or wiped out, causing a regime crisis in Kiev. U.S. weapons could have begun flowing in, setting the stage for a collision between Russia and the United States.
One understands Russia's vital interest in retaining its Black Sea naval base in Crimea, and keeping Ukraine out of NATO. And one sees the vital interest of Ukraine in not losing the Donbas.
But what is America's vital interest here?
Merkel says a great principle is at stake, that in post-Cold War Europe, borders are not to be changed by force.
That is idealistic, but is it realistic?
At the Cold War's end, Yugoslavia split into seven nations, the USSR into 15. Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, even Slovenia briefly, had to fight to break free. So, too, did the statelets of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in breaking from Georgia, and Transnistria from Moldova.
Inside Russia there are still minorities such as the Chechens who wish to break free. And in many of the new nations like Ukraine, there are ethnic Russians who want to go home.
Indeed, a spirit of secessionism pervades the continent of Europe.
But while London permitted the Scottish secessionists a vote, Madrid refuses to concede that right to the Basques or Catalans. And some of these ethnic minorities may one day fight to break free, as the Irish did a century ago.
Yet of all of the secessionist movements from the Atlantic to the Urals, none imperils a vital interest of the United States. None is really our business. And none justifies a war with Russia.
Indeed, what is it about this generation of Americans that makes us such compulsive meddlers in the affairs of nations we could not find on a map? Consider if you will our particular affliction: Putin paranoia.
Forty years ago, this writer was in Moscow with Richard Nixon on his last summit with Leonid Brezhnev. It was not a contentious affair, though the USSR was then the command center of an immense empire that stretched from Berlin to the Bering Sea.
And when we are warned that Putin wishes to restore that USSR of 1974, and to reassemble that Soviet Empire of yesterday, have we really considered what that would require of him?
To restore the USSR, Putin would have to recapture Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, an area the size of the United States.
To resurrect the Soviet Empire, Putin would have to invade and occupy Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and then overrun Germany to the Elbe River.
How far along is Putin in re-establishing the empire of the czars and commissars? He has reannexed Crimea, which is roughly the size of Vermont, and which the Romanovs acquired in the 18th century.
Yet almost daily we hear the din from Capitol Hill, "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!"
That there is bad blood between America and Putin is undeniable. And, indeed, Putin has his quarrels with us as well.
In his eyes, we took advantage of the dissolution of the USSR to move NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic republics. We used our color-coded revolutions to dump over pro-Russian regimes in Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan.
Yet beyond our mutual distrust, or even contempt, is there not common ground between us?
As the century unfolds, two clear and present dangers threaten U.S. strategic interests: the rising power of a covetous China and the spread of Islamic terrorism.
In dealing with both, Russia is a natural ally. China sees Siberia and the Russian Far East, with its shrinking population, as a storehouse of the resources Beijing needs.
And against the Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and al-Qaida, Russia, which suffered in Beslan and Moscow what New York, London, Madrid, Paris and Copenhagen have suffered, is on our side.
During the Cold War, Russia was in thrall to an ideology hostile to all we believed in. She had rulers who commanded a world empire.
Yet we had presidents who could do business with Moscow.
If we could negotiate with neo-Stalinists issues as grave as the the Berlin Wall, and ballistic missiles in Cuba, why cannot we sit down with Vladimir Putin and discuss less earthshaking matters, such as whose flag should fly over Luhansk and Donetsk?
Meanwhile, Pat thinks Bibi watches him sleep at night.
Good question!
Pat’s always there to explain why we need to let foreign dictators have their way.
I guess Putin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) is already taken.
There is also PBKS - Putin Butt Kissing Syndrome.
We’re not doing the meddling, Russia is
We’re just helping a country that is being attacked by Russia, for doing nothing wrong
Why can’t Russia just leave Ukraine ALONE?
(another good, simple question for you)
"Last week, we were told there were 40,000 Yazidis on Sinjar Mountain facing starvation if they remained there, and slaughter by ISIS if they came down. But a team of Marines and Special Forces that helicoptered in has reported back that, with a corridor off the mountain opened up by U.S. air strikes, the humanitarian crisis is over. The few thousand who remain can be airdropped food and water. The rest can be brought out."
Weirdly enough, the Crimea is almost exactly the size of the Sudetenland, which Chamberlain handed over to Hitler in exchange for a piece of paper. Of course, Pat also thinks the US should not have fought Hitler.
There's sure no Peru's vital interest in it but America's vital interests are in four corners of the world - that's the price for keeping a superpower status (and a significant part of revenues of US corporations).
“How far along is Putin in re-establishing the empire of the czars and commissars?”
He will sure go farther with this impotent approach in place and it's not really only about conquering and annexing... People here should read about “Lisbon to Vladivostok” new security architecture.
“In his eyes, we took advantage of the dissolution of the USSR to move NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic republics.”
Russia got a great deal after the cold war. Despite being defeated, they got away with nearly a century of genocide, got NATO turned into a political club as a gift and tonnes of IMF/WB aid on top of that.
Oh really. Ukrainian protesters get visit from Sen. John McCain - Dec 2013
We’re just helping a country that is being attacked by Russia, for doing nothing wrong
Didn't you just contradict yourself? If Russia did attack Ukraine it would have been long over.
Why can’t Russia just leave Ukraine ALONE?
Why can't Ukraine leave Donetsk and Luhansk alone. It's not the Russians who are causing all the death and destruction there. It's the Ukrainian army.
There might have been a new moon that day, which was as relevant to Maidan protest as McCain visit. Maidan was happening either way.
Here are the American “imperialists” backing the riot police that beat the Ukrainian protests. Draw your own conclusion from the image.
http://www.segodnya.ua/img/gallery/4819/21/519884_main.jpg
That's not really correct. The USSR didn't include those countries although they were vassals. Instead Putin has a number of interests in the border states like Ukraine. One is strategic, to gain a buffer around Russia itself. While in theory a NATO Ukraine next to Russia would not be a threat, Russia does not see it that way.
Putin's bigger interest is of course economic. He doesn't want a Euro-Ukraine and would rather have a crony capitalist Ukraine with his cronies involved. The Euro-Ukraine alternative has some problems as well but those are more along the lines of helping bail out Greece while wanting the same deal, endless rolling loans. Not sure which is worse in the long run.
Putin's third interest is the Russians living in former USSR countries, and not so much in eastern bloc countries. In reality those Russians are just pawns to be manipulated into stirring up trouble when needed.
But it is good to post an article by Pat Buchanan every now and then just to see if all the old neocons are still alive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
