Ron Paul vs. USA Today on Crimea; Reflections on "High Costs" of USA Today Proposal

A pair of articles on USA Today, one by Ron Paul, the other the view of the editorial board of USA Today, proves that even when the facts are laid out, hypocrites remain hypocrites.

Ron Paul's View

Crimea Secedes. So What?

Residents of Crimea voted over the weekend on whether they would remain an autonomous region of Ukraine or join the Russian Federation. In so doing, they joined a number of countries and regions — including recently Scotland, Catalonia and Venice — that are seeking to secede from what they view as unresponsive or oppressive governments.

These latter three are proceeding without much notice, while the overwhelming Crimea vote to secede from Ukraine has incensed U.S. and European Union officials, and has led NATO closer to conflict with Russia than since the height of the Cold War.

What's the big deal? Opponents of the Crimea vote like to point to the illegality of the referendum. But self-determination is a centerpiece of international law. Article I of the United Nations Charter points out clearly that the purpose of the U.N. is to "develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."

Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?

Critics point to the Russian "occupation" of Crimea as evidence that no fair vote could have taken place. Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by U.S. troops was called a "triumph of democracy"?

Perhaps the U.S. officials who supported the unconstitutional overthrow of Ukraine's government should refocus their energies on learning our own Constitution, which does not allow the U.S. government to overthrow governments overseas or send a billion dollars to bail out Ukraine and its international creditors. ...

USA Today Editorial Board View

Show Putin the High Cost of Conquest

When President Vladimir Putin addresses Russia's parliament Tuesday, he will almost certainly announce, just two weeks after a remarkably bloodless invasion and just two days after Sunday's secession vote, that Crimea is rejoining Russia.

Most Russians and Crimeans, bursting with patriotic pride, will cheer, egged on by Putin's propaganda machine, which had crushed dissenting voices. The mild sanctions imposed by the Obama administration and Europe, to protest Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine, will be dismissed or ignored.

So far, the Obama administration, with no military option, has responded appropriately: rallying allies, preparing an escalating series of economic sanctions and pressing Putin diplomatically. But threats need teeth to be credible, and Putin will relent only if he believes that his actions will have devastating consequences.

The immediate step, freezing assets of a few officials close to Putin, is a minor warning shot. The firepower can by multiplied many times by imposing embargoes, cutting Russia off from the international banking system or other measures — if Europe is willing to bear the cost. ...

Reflections on "High Costs"

Notice how the USA Today editorial board wants to show Putin the "high cost" when in actuality it would be Europe that must be willing to bear the cost, not the US. Russia can and would shut off natural gas delivery to Europe if the USA Today got its way.

And speaking of "high cost of conquest" the USA today ought to mention we wasted trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan  with virtually nothing to show for it but a mountain of debt and well-warranted global hatred of US war-mongering.

The US learned nothing from Vietnam, nothing from Iraq, and nothing from Afghanistan.

Warmongers like McCain think the solution to this mess is sanctions coupled with sending missiles to the Czech Republic. 

History Lesson

The USA Today also ignores history. Crimea was given to the Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. Was that gift constitutional? Putin makes a very reasonable claim that it wasn't.

As long as we are discussing history, inquiring minds just may be interested in European Border Changes Over Last 1000 Years.



Link if video does not play: European Border Changes over Last 1000 Years

US Hypocrisy

The US is quite willing to have a vote, provided the vote is going the way the US wants.

And speaking of votes, where were the US hypocrites when technocrat after technocrat leader was installed in Italy and Greece undoubtedly against the constitution of those countries, without a vote.

The US bombed into submission Iraq and Afghanistan halfway around the globe but protests when Russia protects its clear military interests on its own border, a border that was given away (most likely unconstitutionally).

Now we protest the vote was not fair and was against Ukraine's constitution. Please spare me the sap.

I am tired of US warmongers and hypocrites who think "might makes right" but only when it is the US leading the aggression.

1000 years of history as well as an ounce of common sense says this is not our battle. We should stay out of it.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com