Sorry. Can't help myself. I know I said in the last blog I was probably done. But it seems like as long as Obama is running things in America there are just too many geopolitical issues that demand a comment. Besides, as Hoser (My wife's cousin who played hockey in college, thus the nickname - hoser, hosehead, i.e., Canadian) reminded me of the famous words of Bluto Blutarsky in a comment to the last Slugzilla, "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor"?
The biggest issues of the day involve the Russian activities in the Crimean region of the Ukraine. So to start off, make no mistake and let me be perfectly clear (a phrase borrowed from a certain megalomaniac when he is about to tell the world something he has no intention of following through on, but in this case is a statement of fact rather than an announcement of a toothless threat). Vladimir Putin is a bad guy. But, it is kind of humorous for Barack Obama to label Crimea's new legislature's vote to secede from the Ukraine as illegal when Obama himself routinely violates our Constitution to impose his ideological agenda on us.
Furthermore, it is not like Crimea has been a long time loyal province within the Ukrainian territory. Crimea has been a constitutionally recognized self-governing autonomous region since the Ukraine became an independent nation in 1991. As far as I can tell, the Ukraine as a nation with anywhere near its present borders never existed before 1922, when it was formed as one of the first republics of the USSR, and even then it didn't include Crimea until it was annexed in 1954. Prior to that time the territory of present day Ukraine was comprised of independent states controlled by ethnic groups such as Tatars and Cossacks or neighbors such as Poland, Lithuania, Crimea and Russia. From 1721 through the first World War the Russian Empire claimed significant parcels of the region, but the borders kept changing.
The first time Ukraine became an independent nation was for three years from 1919 to 1922 following World War I and prior to the formation of the USSR. The next time it was independent was in 1991 upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In other words, the Ukraine has existed as an independent nation for a total of only 26 years. Since 1991 it has been comprised of 24 provinces and one autonomous republic - Crimea.
As mentioned, Crimea did not even become part of the Ukraine until 1954 when it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic by Nikita Khruschchev, a native Ukrainian. I am old enough to remember Khrushchev. He never came across as a particularly bright guy. Perhaps handing Crimea to Ukraine was a bad idea. 58% of Crimeans are ethnic Russians and 77% claim Russian as their native language. It seems the people of Crimea have had very little voice in choosing their allegiance. Maybe they should be given that choice.
Yes, the Russians under Putin are becoming more belligerent and dismissive of international law. That is what happens when you have the Western World abdicate its responsibilities and depend on the US for security against aggression, followed by the election of an American president who is an incompetent wimp. We should expect potential adversaries throughout the world to continue to show their fangs and gain more global power and influence at the expense of Western countries. Until Americans and Europeans pull their heads out of their asses and understand the way the world works, it will continue to become a much more dangerous place. But the Russian actions in Crimea may not be the place to justify an aggressive response.
Western countries are screaming that the Russians are violating international law. Yes, the Russians did sign an agreement in 1994 where they agreed that in exchange for Ukraine's decision to give up the nuclear weapons it inherited during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia affirmed it would respect Ukraine's independence and sovereignty and the existing borders. They also agreed to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine's territorial integrity or political independence. But why would anyone trust any agreement Russia signs. They violate every one.
Of course in reality one has to question whether there is such a thing as rule of international law, particularly when multiple violations are underway around the world all the time. Think Syria, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, and on and on. Perhaps the most egregious hypocrisy is when the biggest violators of human rights such as China, Cuba, India (the caste system still exists), and that paragon of virtue, Venezuela, all have seats on the UN Human Rights Council. And Russia is not the only country that unilaterally violates treaties it signs. In his first year in office Obama reneged on a deal that had been signed the year before to build a missile defense shield in Poland to defend Europe against long range missiles launched from the Middle East or Russia. That was the beginning of our allies learning to not trust us.
For Barack Obama, warning the Russians about breaking rules is like living in a glass house and throwing stones, except in the international arena Obama throws nerf balls. So far in every region of the world where mere creampuffs have kicked sand in his face, he has yet to do anything. The whole world knows he has no intention of backing his bluster up. He always falls back into the Obama Shuffle - talk tough and pretend the other side capitulates as they continue to do whatever they damn well please while moving on to the next big lie. After all, the empty threatener did tell the Russians he would be more flexible his second term.
What the hell are opponents supposed to think, that Pee Wee Herman will suddenly turn into Audie Murphy? On top of that, do we really have the capability of backing up threats? Europeans spend barely enough on defense to build a scarecrow, and naturally the Democrats are doing what they do best - gut our military. Obama's record in foreign policy for five years has been nothing but a combination of Jimmy Carter and Roseanne Roseannadanna,
In some circumstances secession may not be a bad idea. Some issues are irreconcilable. Conflict to maintain lines on a map may not be worth the bloody battles that result. For example, once before in America history society became so divided that half the country tried to secede. One out of every 25 Americans were either killed or horribly wounded in our civil war to preserve the union. Out of a population of 31 million, 750,000 died and 500,000 were wounded. For those who survived, nearly every family was profoundly damaged by the carnage. All for what? So a few politicians could maintain their power? Slavery was already a failing institution throughout the world as the United States was one of the last Western countries to abolish it. Slavery was primarily an agricultural phenomena, and the Industrial Revolution was already under way. Slavery in America was on its way out.
So was the Civil War really worth it? For some reason there seems to be a societal stigma on questioning the necessity of the Civil War. Why is that? What did the Civil War really accomplish? 150 years later most African-Americans still claim to be victims and that white people owe them entitlements and reparations. Some issues persist in the minds of many long after they have ceased to exist. Actually, separation of people with different backgrounds and interests is not necessarily a bad thing. Coercive domination by claiming intellectual, cultural and moral superiority only creates lingering hatred and enmity that never goes away. Maybe it wasn't a good idea to let the British and the French determine the fate of the Ottoman empire after World War I either. Perhaps the Middle East wouldn't be in such turmoil today.
I have no idea how events in the Ukraine will turn out. You certainly can't count on the Russians to run a fair election in Crimea. Of course you can't trust the Democrats to run a fair one in the US either, not with ACORN and unions involved. It is too bad that in all their self-proclaimed brilliance the current leaders in Washington had no clue the world is still a dangerous place. There is little question that the proper response to the Russian move in Crimea is complicated, but it is certainly not worth brinksmanship.
At some point, however, the West is going to have to stand up to the belligerents of the world and let them know they have gone far enough. Unfortunately, it is never a good idea to make that stand from a position of weakness. We are the only country in the world that has the capability to create strategic and tactical superiority. But the Democrats think other things are more important and are determined to make us vulnerable. Hopefully we won't find out the hard way that you don't pick fights unless you are sure you have superior offensive and defensive firepower, not just rough equivalence. Otherwise you will see the nukes fly. That will most definitely not be a good thing. The Russians have more than we do.
