Once again, the administration has its hair on fire about Ukraine and a supposed Russian incursion; this while their military operations in Iraq are expanding and their commitments deepening. Now I know how all those people felt after electing that peace candidate, Lyndon Johnson … or that other peace candidate, Woodrow Wilson. Both Democrats, I should point out.
This Russia/Ukraine matter is remarkable in its stupidity. It’s as if our “National Security” state imperial institutions cannot justify their own existence anymore without resurrecting the Cold War, and in so doing, are attempting to make it seem like Putin is intent on resurrecting the Soviet Union. I have to say, that’s pretty weak sauce, as they say on the “coast”. (The sauce must be kind of weak there.) It’s the usual appeasement/slippery slope narrative – sure, it may seem like small potatoes to you, sliding a handful of armored personnel carriers across the border, but if we let him get away with THIS, ANYthing can happen.
We should examine our own alliances. For one thing, we are supporting some real unsavory characters in Kiev, who have some significant blood on their hands. Just as our nominal allies in Syria – or at least many of the beneficiaries of our covert military aid in the unfortunate nation – have been less than exemplary. We blew Iraq to pieces ten years ago; jihadist extremists came in to feed on the carcass … that’s who we’re fighting. It’s not that far from what happened in Afghanistan over thirty-five years. We create the post-apocalyptic space within which our own future adversaries can thrive.
Russia is not the Soviet Union, but then … neither was the Soviet Union, really. We have broken our Bush I-era pledge not to expand NATO to the east. We are deploying missile defense on their border. We are pushing for expansion of Washington/Brussels consensus trade to Ukraine and other post-Soviet republics, insisting that they choose between us and the Russians.
News flash: Ukraine lives next to a major power called Russia. They are like Mexico or Honduras …. they just have to learn how to live with the fact. Frankly, I think Mexico and Honduras have a lot more to worry about.
luv u,
jp
No fear, right? We won’t see Netanyahu in the dock, because if he lands there, our leaders would be right behind him for their crucial support of his atrocities. The ICC may sound like a good idea, but make no mistake: it’s not for powerful countries; it is for defeated leaders from the developing world who have gotten on the wrong side of the United States in one way or another. You might see a Milosevic or a Sri Lankan general facing justice, but never the George Bushes, Dick Cheneys, Don Rumsfelds, Barack Obamas, Tony Blairs, or BiBi Netanyahus of the world. I know I’ve said it before, but it’s mere victor’s justice, and therefore no justice at all.
Of course, they already had their hair on fire about Obama’s foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East. Once again, the alarm bell is cranked up to eleven … like it was for the capture of the Benghazi jihadist, and for the the Bergdahl deal, and for pretty much every thing that happens anywhere, every day of the week. Not sure why we should listen to people like Dan Senor, or John McCain, or Bill Kristol, or anyone else still on television after having been so fantastically wrong on what they were supposed to be experts about, but we keep hearing from them anyway. Go back into Iraq, they say … it’s the only way to keep the country from falling apart.