Misrepresenting the Libertarian Position on Putin

Despite the complete failure of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, war-mongers and even self-proclaimed libertarians don't understand what is going on in the Ukraine, why it's none of our business, or even how the civil war in Ukraine started.

A friend sent me an article today from the site Conservatives for Liberty called Confused libertarians are Supporting Putin by Gabrielė Stakaitytė.

Supposedly the site is an "independent libertarian, free market and socially liberal campaign group".

It is difficult to judge a site on the basis of one article, but there is a difference between supporting Putin and saying Ukraine is essentially none of our business, the true libertarian position.

According to Gabrielė "From soap operas to ballet performances, the Russian government is doing everything to influence the cultural life of Eastern Europe, and to maintain a stranglehold on the mentality of the people."

Let's assume that is true. Here is an equally true statement "From soap operas to ballet performances, the EU is doing everything to influence the cultural life of all of Europe, and to maintain a stranglehold on the mentality of the people."

Here's another "The US is doing everything to everyone globally, and by military force where necessary, to maintain a hypocritical stranglehold on any country that dares go against the vision of the United States."

One can come up with all sorts of similar statements.

Just what did warmongers expect when the US broke promises and expanded NATO to the East? Did they expect Russia would sit back and do nothing? Did they want to start WW III?

The US fomented the overthrow of the last Ukrainian government and now does not like the result. Similarly, no one in their right mind is happy about the overthrow of the Shah of Iran decades ago, the lives lost in Vietnam, and the results of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Back to the point. This is not our battle. If those in Crimea want to join Russia, no one should care.

Gabrielė blasts the vote in Crimea.Was it rigged? Let's assume it was. Was it rigged to the point that an honest vote would have led to a different result. No it wasn't.

Gabrielė says "Another example of confused libertarians supporting Putin is calling the new Ukrainian government illegitimate, or even fascist, whatever that is supposed to mean. The Ukrainian government is no less legitimate than the first US government, having come to power after a popular revolution."

Good grief. Look at the irony! If the current Ukrainian government is no less legitimate than the first US government, one can say the exact same thing about Crimea!

By implication, if Gabrielė likes the result, the action is OK, if she doesn't, then it's not. That is essentially the hypocrisy of the US position in a nutshell.

I do not believe many libertarians are cheering Putin per se. Perhaps one can find a few self-proclaimed libertarians openly cheering Putin, but people can claim to be whatever they want, and to the point of blatant hypocrisy, Gabrielė does just that.

Finally, please note that Gabrielė offered no links or even quotes to support her claim. She asserts "confused libertarians support Putin". Can we have some examples please, something more than allegations?

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