How to Handle Monster Putin

The U.S. and Europe are in no position to resist the Russian invasion of Ukraine, nor should they.

rianovostirianovostiWhat happens when the United States government participates meaningfully in toppling foreign governments in the name of spreading democracy? That behavior usually results in unintended consequences and often produces disasters.

When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003—initially to search for weapons of mass destruction that we now know the Bush administration knew did not exist there, and eventually for regime change—it succeeded in profoundly changing the Iraqi government. But in the process, we lost 4,500 American troops, suffered 45,000 substantial injuries, borrowed and spent and have not paid back more than $2 trillion, caused the deaths of 650,000 Iraqis, displaced 2.5 million Iraqis, and unleashed into Iraq our public enemy, al-Qaida. Al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded. Today, it controls one-third of that now unstable country.

In 2010, President Obama decided he no longer liked America's favorite Middle Eastern dictator, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, even though he and his four immediate predecessors gave the Mubarak government about $4 billion annually. So our agents fomented revolution in the streets while Obama suggested openly that it was time for Mubarak to leave office. Then the hoped-for and promised free elections took place, and avowed enemy of the West and Islamic fanatic Mohammed Morsi became the first popularly elected president in Egyptian history. Then the U.S. decided it did not want him in power no matter the lawfulness and moral legitimacy of his election, and so the Obama administration encouraged a military coup.

Morsi was arrested by his own military commanders and is currently on trial for permitting his soldiers under those same commanders to kill nine people who were resisting the coup, even though the American-backed military plotters—who now rule Egypt and are prosecuting Morsi—have killed thousands of Egyptian civilians who attempted to resist the removal of Morsi from office. The result is a military dictatorship and murderous resistance far more odious than in the Mubarak years.

And in Ukraine in 2004, the Bush administration fomented the so-called Orange Revolution. This, too, was done by our diplomats and intelligence community, whose agents agitated demonstrators in the streets and liberally distributed American dollars to them. This resulted in a free election, which resulted in subsequent free elections, until the most recent of those produced a president who—as an ex-communist—was more drawn to Russia than to the U.S. or Europe.

When the Ukraine government needed cash and Russia offered it a better deal than the European Union, our imperial diplomats and lawless intelligence gurus were embarrassed. So, the U.S. fomented another revolution in the streets of Kiev. One of our diplomats, Victoria Nuland, acknowledged as much in a tapped and taped (complete with expletives) and eventually viral cellphone conversation. Then Viktor Yanukovich, the popularly and lawfully elected Ukraine president, was toppled and fled to Moscow. The new unelected Ukraine president has received American recognition and help. Earlier this week, the U.S. offered him $1 billion in immediate cash.

Enter Vladimir Putin. He is the popularly elected president of Russia who has designs on reconstituting the old Soviet Union. Putin is also an ex-KGB agent; he is a torturer, a murderer, a tyrant and a monster. He often has lamented the demise of the former Soviet Union. Ukraine was a part of that union until the evil empire dissolved in 1991. It was the most economically productive part of that union. Today it enjoys a mostly free market and is highly entrepreneurial, though partly a welfare state. Roughly two-thirds of Ukraine identifies with Europe and one-third with Russia.

After Yanukovich showed up at Putin's doorstep in Moscow, Putin flexed his muscles by sending 16,000 Russian troops, in uniforms without insignia and wearing black masks (you cannot make this up), over the border to occupy Crimea, a province of Ukraine which had been part of Russia and the Soviet Union until 1954.

Putin's invasion is profoundly unlawful, as it constitutes the introduction of military troops into a sovereign territory without governmental invitation or consent, and the absence of identifying insignia puts this invasion outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions and the rules of war. Hence the Russian troops are legally fair game for Ukrainian troops and civilian militias. But don't expect that to happen. Russia has two times the number of tanks as Ukraine, 10 times the troops, and 12 times the air power.

As well, don't expect the Russians to leave. Most residents of Crimea are Russian speaking and actually welcome their invaders (again, you cannot make this up). And Putin's track record in foreign incursions shows a pattern of retaining conquered territories. When he invaded Georgia in 2008, he kept two provinces, which are still occupied with more than 40,000 idle and costly Russian troops.

The U.S. and Europe are in no position to resist the Russian invasion, nor should they. Europe receives roughly 30 percent of its oil, natural gas, and coal from Russia. If the U.S. tightens the economic screws on Russia, American banks will suffer and the Russian oligarchs and Russian people will suffer, but no group will suffer as much as Europeans who have grown dependent on Russian fuel. And Putin is unmoved by personal embarrassment or human suffering.

The stated purpose of the Russian invasion is to protect predominantly ethnic Russians in Crimea from the mob-induced fate of Yanukovich. At first blush, this seems nonsense. But consider the view from Moscow of the American-induced expulsion of the popularly elected and Russian-oriented Ukraine president. And then consider this: What would the U.S. do if the Chinese had fomented a revolution in Mexico and installed a Chinese-friendly government there that solicited Chinese loans and invited the Chinese to help govern? Would the U.S. protect English-speaking, American-friendly folks along the Texas-Mexico border?

And how is anyone in the U.S. harmed by Putin's lawlessness? Should the United States government roam the world seeking monsters to slay, or should it learn from its recent grave mistakes? Nearly two centuries ago, President John Quincy Adams warned his successors against the foreign policies that would be manifest in the Bush/Obama years: "Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons that they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy."

But the government is an old dog that cannot learn new tricks.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Aw, man. That first sentence got my hopes up that this was going to be another all-question article.

  • UnCivilServant||

    What good would that do?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    What good do you think it would do?

  • ||

    What difference does it make at this point?

  • Bryan C||

    +1

  • Acosmist||

    "we now know the Bush administration knew did not exist there"

    ?

    I thought the accepted view was that the intelligence was wrong. And I've heard even here that the Syrian WMDs were...Iraqi. Anyone with more knowledge who can comment on this?

  • UnCivilServant||

    All I know is that there were two separate documented uses of chemical weapons by the Iraqi regime prior to 2003 (during the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurds) and they had given the ineffectual UN a hard time. It seemed improbable that they'd disposed of their arsenal. Unless the Syrian weapons were theirs and they sold them to their fellow Ba'athists.

    I don't have any more facts though, sorry.

  • Drake||

    I came to a full stop with that statement too. I'm also suspicious of the Syrian connection.

  • GamerFromJump||

    Apparently the fact that nothing was found after a year of lead time is absolute PROOF that there was nothing to find in the first place. /s

  • ||

    Yes. There were concerns that Iraq were whisking WMD's in the dead of night into Syria.

    The assumption that Hussein had WMD's (later to be shown false due to faulty intelligence) was not far fetched to begin with as the killing of the Kurds with chemical weapons demonstrates.

    At the time, I guess I can try and find the article in print, Foreign Policy listed 14 reasons given by the U.S. to invade and WMD's was ranked around 4th if memory serves me correct. That was interesting.

    Also, it was hard to link him to 9/11 part of the problem.

    Whether they knew or not I don't think was ever proven unless I forgot or missing something.

    At the moment, I reckon Obama's 'you can keep it' lie is bigger. People may see it differently.

  • Raven Nation||

    This isn't Foreign Policy (and it's from a site that was a pretty big cheerleader for the Iraqi invasion) and it's a lot of "this person said this and that person said that" but it will give you a flavor for the Iraq/Syria suspicions:

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/satell.....-to-syria/

    I know another account was that WMDs were sent into the Bekaa Valley where they would be almost impossible to find.

  • ||

    Do you mean FP was a cheerleader?

    Wouldn't surprise me.

  • Raven Nation||

    No, sorry, PJ Media.

  • ||

    Ah, got it. Misread.

  • SusanM||

    But weren't those chemical weapons just hydrochloric acid?

  • Lonely Stalker||

    "Yes. There were concerns that Iraq were whisking WMD's in the dead of night into Syria."

    As peddled by neocons in the War Street Journal once it turned out that the stuff shown as "WMDs" on CNN were actually old drums rotting in a hole in the desert.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    The whole article requires a large tin foil hat

  • CampingInYourPark||

    So, the U.S. fomented another revolution in the streets of Kiev. One of our diplomats, Victoria Nuland, acknowledged as much in a tapped and taped (complete with expletives) and eventually viral cellphone conversation.

    Diplomats discussing a situation after the fact is hardly "fomenting" a revolution. If anything, what the discussion displayed is that they have little to no control over events in Ukraine

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    I think he sees American plotters behind every revolt, revolution, and unrest.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    in the world.

  • ||

    I blame the Bourne Influence.

    Seriously. It's hard to get a grip on just how deep the CIA/diplomats get involved around the world. Are they lawless as the judge claims?

  • DJF||

    So what do the CIA/Diplomats do? It certainly is not discovering what is happening around the world before they happen since its always a surprise to them.

  • Raven Nation||

    I'm thinking it was Michael Westen.

  • ||

    I agree. This article takes a rather extreme view of a lot of things.

  • JWatts||

    I'm glad other's think so. The Judge is jumping the Shark with this article.

  • wareagle||

    The judge is taking a huge leap of faith on that one. I don't believe "we now know" what he claims we now know.

  • ||

    They are who we thought they were?

  • wareagle||

    +1 Dennis Green.

  • iEagleHammer||

    I always felt bad for Dennis Green on that one, I watched that game and I knew what he meant. But what a classic rant...

  • VicRattlehead||

    There were intelligence reports supposedly being leaked as to which sites had been known of and which hadn't, the chemical weapons were thought to have been moved to Syria because they were an American ally at the time. this was just a rumor when i was over there, but judging from recent events it seems that it was plausible that it happened

  • DJF||

    Syria had its own long standing chemical weapons program they got from the Soviets

    That is why Syria never signed onto the treaty banning chemical weapons.

    Chemical weapons were a long time part of Syria countering Israel's nuclear weapons.

  • PaulW||

    Well he also calls Morsi morally legitimate because he was elected by a majority of voters.

    I thought libertarians understood that the only legitimate government is one that respects the rights of the people?

  • Lonely Stalker||

    Jesus Christ!

    In 2014!

    People still believing that Iraq had any WMD whatsoever in 2003, or blaming "faulty intelligence" instead of a fully made-up story by the Bush-Blair duo of retardation and hybris. Remember 9/11 pulled off by Saudis living in Germany? Yep, we will attack Afghanistan and Iraq to show them, good plan.

    People completely forgetting that Iraq's WMD were all blown up (yielding some interesting cases of Iraq War Veteran Syndrome) in the first Iraq War in 1991. Yes. Remember "Desert Storm" or "The Gulf War"?

    facepalm.jpg

  • MWG||

    This article might be the judge's worst. Appearantly, no revolution around the world takes place without US "fomentation".

    His take on how the revolution in Egypt began and proceeded, for example, is just factually incorrect.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Yes, I was there when it happened and i had made friends with some of the english speaking Royal Guardsmen when they would board our ship in transit.
    Poverty caused this, poverty brought on as a result of Islamic socialism policies that destroyed their local barter type economy. Their military was only fed a few meals a week, and most have to live in outposts with no running water or electricity out in the desert so that they can keep the city side of the suez safe from the tribalists who lived in the desert and would lob mortars and rockets into the city. so yeah i think everyone was just sick of the way life was

  • Lonely Stalker||

    Yes, how is Putin a "monster"? This manichean autism should result in the writer getting the taste of the editor's whip.

    Putin killed less people than US presidents did since 2000. Good enough for me.

  • Drake||

    Well, if Obama had a full set, we would immediately restart the missile defense program in central Europe that was cancelled in return for Putin playing nice. We should also be scheduling major military exercises with Poland and the Baltic states this summer.

    Negotiating some big energy deals with the Europeans would remove some of Putin's income and leverage.

    There are plenty of ways to make Putin feel some pain.

  • wareagle||

    you are making a common mistake with Obama - judging him by the calculus used on previous presidents. That's wrong. He has no interest in any of the things you outline because that would project American power, and we can debate whether that is worthwhile. But Obama's goal remains to diminish the country; fundamental transformation did not mean what his fellators thought it meant.

  • DJF||

    So I as an American am suppose to feel more pain in taxes and war so that Putin will feel some pain?

    No Thanks. I have been feeling the pain of wasting money and lives around the world for my entire life.

  • DJF||

    """"restart the missile defense program in central Europe"""

    If the Europeans want a missile defense program in central Europe why don't the Europeans build one. Or at the very least buy one from the US.

    I see no reason why Europe which has more people, more GDP and more supposed threat should not pay for its own defense.

  • Drake||

    The Poles, Czechs and other former Soviet client states very much wanted the system. The Western Europeans are completely useless.

  • DJF||

    “”””The Poles, Czechs and other former Soviet client states “””

    Then they can pay for it.

    It does nothing to defend the US since the missiles involved don’t have the speed or range to intercept rockets heading for the US.

  • JWatts||

    "Then they can pay for it."

    You make a good point.

  • JWatts||

    "Then they can pay for it."

    You make a good point.

  • JFree||

    Eastern Europe is going to need to put together some common defense alliance other than NATO then.

    Because Russia is always going to be a threat to them. And in about 10 years or so, there will be no US debate/question about involvement. We will be too broke too afford both SS/Medicare AND overseas military meddling - and we sure aren't gonna give up SS/Medicare.

    and yes, Western Europeans will STILL be useless.

  • Drake||

    War? Please explain.

    Putin attacks weakness. He has no desire for an actual war. Flexing a little muscle with actual NATO allies would hardly start a war.

  • DJF||

    So said people about half the wars that have been started.

  • Drake||

    The other half, like WWII, were started by not supporting allies or standing up to aggressors in time.

  • DJF||

    What allies were not supported. UK and France went to war to support Poland. Though only against Germany, they did not support Poland against the USSR

    The US had no allies prior to declaring war.

    And talking about aggressors, UK and France were the largest empires in the world. USSR was probably the next largest.

  • JFree||

    Get real. WW2 started because Stalin and Hitler formed a de facto alliance. That carved up Eastern Europe and eliminated the 'second front' problem for Germany.

  • Lonely Stalker||

    Correct. Stalin then started to hoover up the baltics and tried to own Finland.

    Meanwhile, leftists in the US went from Hitler-haters to Hitler-lovers overnight. This was suddenly reversed when Adolf decided to take the "Barbarossa" weekend outing to Moskow.

  • ||

    His aim to be pals with Putin did blow up in his face and it doesn't look like he planned for that possibility.

    Which is not surprising given he's a checkers player in a world of chess players.

  • wwhorton||

    Checkers can actually be pretty sophisticated from a strategic standpoint if you're playing with the right person. Obama is a tic-tac-toe man. He puts his Xs in the corners every single time, because that's how you win.

  • prolefeed||

    Naw, he puts his Os in the corner every time, after letting the other player negotiate that they always get the first move.

    Because that's how you win at checkers, forcing the other person to reveal their strategy first so you can take advantage of it.

  • wwhorton||

    Although I was against the missile defense program initially, I think you're right. This would be the perfect time to dust that sucker off and really commit to developing a functional defense system. And hell, distribute it to anyone who wants it. When the Russians raise a stink, we simply point to concerns about recent Russian military exercises on the part of the international community.

  • Jordan||

    Or we could mind our own business and let Europe pay for its own damn defense.

  • Lonely Stalker||

    "Well, if Obama had a full set, we would immediately restart the missile defense program in central Europe that was cancelled in return for Putin playing nice."

    The assumption is that the US anything to tell Russia about this or that or the "Missile Defense" bullshit is anything else than taking a big fat taxpayer-funded wank.

    I'm still waiting for Reagan's "SDI" to go online.

    I also remember who the "European Missile Defense" was suddenly all about defending from "Missiles from Iran" (really, can one make this bullshit up?) when it turned out that its single effect would be to make the Bear nervous, because try it against a Topol-M and see failure in action.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I thought the accepted view was that the intelligence was wrong.

    This was an outright lie: "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Nobody, NOBODY but the Bush admin thought Saddam had anything warranting immediate invasion because of what he could have tomorrow. Nobody. I was expecting them to find something any Chem Eng. w/ a $100 Home Depot gift card could make and they didn't even find that, but the 'intelligence' that said we couldn't risk not invading right then and there was pulled out of their lying asses.

  • Acosmist||

    This is the polar opposite of what's been posted upthread.

    So I'm much more confused than before.

  • ||

    Including myself. But the key here is nobody BUT the Bush administration and Congress believed. Ergo, they voted to go in.

  • ||

    For what it's worth, the Canadian government chose to support the U.S. in Afghanistan believing this action to be more credible than invading Iraq because Canadian officials were never given the proof required for an invasion.

  • wareagle||

    that explains why Bill Clinton was one of the war's biggest cheerleaders. The nation only spent his entire 8 years looking for WMD. Clinton's CIA chief was also Bush's, so hard to imagine that the guy flipped from one administration to the next.

    Even the UN was on board with the use of force in Iraq, which may say more about the UN than anything else, but there it is. It is just not true to say no one but the Bushies thought it justified. Hillary was for it, Kerry was for it, Edwards as for it, even Biden was for it.

  • DJF||

    The usual suspects.

  • ||

    36 countries were on board either through committing troops (E.G. Poland, UK) or just cash (e.g. Japan).

    But to lefties these were not 'real' examples of support. Dunno, but 36 is pretty significant to me.

  • DJF||

    And they all based it on the same small amount of intel that was passed from country to country.

    The inteligence agencies in these countries are so tied together that they all have the same info and the same outcome

  • ||

    Fair enough. But hardly 'unilateral' nonetheless.

  • Lonely Stalker||

    36 countries were on board either through committing troops (E.G. Poland, UK) or just cash (e.g. Japan).

    The UK you can discount because of the "special relationship" and Blair's desire for Greatness (cretin is now flying around to promote world peace; can't make this up)

    As for the rest:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....he_willing

    Oh please!

    MONGOLIA IS WITH US TO FIGHT NEW HITLER! MUNICH!! MUNIICHHH!!!!

    Calling this "coaltion of the willing" must be one of the finer exercises in sarcasm.

  • VicRattlehead||

    He violated 17 UN resolutions, and when asked to join the was in Iraq the UN pussied out like always.
    Feels nice we get to foot 22% of the tab for 0 return on our investments in "world peace"
    Fuck the UN, Fuck NATO. we have a clear and imminent threat of a civil war breaking out in at least 2 states in defense of the 2A and there is literally nothing reported here

  • DJF||

    World Peace? Iraq was not attacking anyone when the US invaded

  • steedamike||

    Huh? Which states?

  • PaulW||

    Connecticut, I would hope, since they're confiscating guns, but something tells me there are too many pussies there.

  • Lonely Stalker||

    Fuck the UN

    Unless it can be used to detected bad behaviour by others and justify ...err.. "protective measures", am I right.

    Fuck NATO.

    Ameritard not knowing that NATO is the US occupation force in Yurop.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    That's not quite the way I remember it. I pretty specifically recall many of the countries opposed to the U.S. invasion agreeing that Hussein probably had WMDs. Their argument was that diplomatic means should have been further exhausted.

  • DJF||

    They all got the same information, from sources like Curve Ball a Iraqi cab driver

  • JFree||

    The reality is that we invaded Iraq in order to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia. THAT was the reason that Saudis were the muscle on 9/11.

    Had we simply left Saudi Arabia, then Saddam would have rolled right back into Kuwait and eastern Saudi again

  • Lonely Stalker||

    The reality is that we invaded Iraq in order to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia. THAT was the reason that Saudis were the muscle on 9/11.

    Had we simply left Saudi Arabia, then Saddam would have rolled right back into Kuwait and eastern Saudi again

    I think you are mixing up the wars of 1991 and 2003 in a rather unhealthy fashion.

    Saddam could have "rolled in" only in a decrepit taxi with wooden wheels. Pulled by a horse.

  • wwhorton||

    And how is anyone in the U.S. harmed by Putin's lawlessness?

    This is the only legitimate litmus test for American military action. Full stop.

  • VicRattlehead||

    how was anyone in France effected when the German empire was being rebuilt circa February 1933?
    but i can see where appeasing sociopaths is in everyones interests

  • Lonely Stalker||

    France should not have behaved like a greedy bitch in a divorce proceedings relative to WWI reparations. The US should maybe have lived up to its promise of "self-determination of people" in Europe. The UK should not have snubbed Mussolini in the common front against Hitler. The Reich of Wilhelm should not have been carved up like a dead corpse. etc. etc.

    but i can see where appeasing sociopaths is in everyones interests

    Do you imply we should antagonize Hillary?

  • Rich||

    "Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons that they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy."

    They should *stay home* to slay dragons they don't understand.

    /sarc

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Seems odd to me, given the history of the U.S., why it's so difficult to imagine that after a while, people might just get fed up with being treated like the personal servants of oligarchs and well connected puppet politicians. Maybe we should just denounce the American Revolution as French meddling in the affairs of the British, who were, after all, only protecting their ethnic peers from trouble making dissenters?
    Not saying the motivation of everyone involved in protests in Ukraine are pure, of course they aren't. But, to suggest that thousands people can be manipulated into dodging bullets for some agents of a State that until now, has done little to alleviate the economic stress of the average Ukrainian is far fetched.

    We should still keep the military out of Ukraine.
    That is all

  • ||

    I like your comments and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    The disappointing result of decades of America strategically seeking to make the world a more democratic utopia should inform our current geopolitical response mechanisms. I concede, though, that to the minds of the military-obsessed the result would be catastrophic rather then merely disappointing so we should be thankful that American values are parlayed about the dysfunctional planet.

    Any result is better than the worst result. Quantifying this animal isn't necessary when codified fear lines your tank treads and spy rings.

  • Raven Nation||

    I'm going to put a lot of this on the Europeans and the weird relationships between the "right" people in the US and the "right" people in Europe. Their politicians bitch & whine for years about how the US has no right to go into Iraq (& I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the Iraq invasion here). But then they demand American leadership in Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc., etc.

    Screw 'em all. Part of the reason the Middle East is messed up is because of European imperialism and part of the reason eastern Europe is messed up is because, once the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO wanted to start absorbing everyone.

    Bring back the Monroe Doctrine I say.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    This is an excellent article, well worth the reading. However, it needs to be said that the Ukraine was an integral part of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE long long before the Bolsheviks (Communists) showed up in 1917 and renamed the empire the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) or Soviet Russia/Soviet Union as it also used to be called.

    When the Communists lost power in 1991 after a very short period of time in power in history time, what happened is that Russia was "reborn" but ceased to exist as an empire. The Ukraine and many other areas of that empire (recognized immediately by the U.S.) became so called "sovereign" nations all of a sudden. Then Russia got Putin as a leader, hardly a monster but a political realist for sure in the Russian tradition.

    I'm surprised Putin did not do this earlier, and especially the Crimean Peninsula part of the Ukraine. This is where the warm water ports were for a very long time before Putin even existed. Think of the man as another Tsar , who after all had a summer palace on that peninsula, not to mention the fact that the Ukraine area was and is the bread basket of Russia.

    Finally, don't forget that Russia is historically scared to death (literally) by the west. Nothing but death has ever come from that direction such as Napoleon and Hitler. Taking the Ukraine back goes right along with a Russian mentality that says it must create as much barrier as possible from the west and Moscow.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "It used to be mine and I really like it" usually works well when stealing something from a neighbor.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Your argument is weak. Start cracking a few history books before you get on this site and bad mouthing my comments. Either that or shut your pie hole!

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Fuck you and your Russian imperialist propaganda.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    My comment is not propaganda but historical fact. However, since you would not be able to present a logical counter-argument based on that anyway, all you can do is rant and rave. This approach is typical for those of your ilk, and always will be.

  • JWatts||

    Alaska, Finland, Armenia and the Baltic Republics were also part of the Russian Empire.

    Does Russia therefore have a claim on Finland and Alaska?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    JWatts,

    You are way off the subject! Of course Russia has no claims on Alaska. The U.S. PURCHASED that from them in 1867. Take a look at your map and a history book and ask yourself why Russia wants the Crimea, and you might find they have some legitimate claims. Ever hear of the Crimean War?

    Other than that, what does Russia taking over that area have to do with your life? What does Russia's moves in the Crimea have to do with the security of the United States of America?

    If this invasion is so important, let the European Union handle it. After all those countries such as France and Germany should know how to handle this. They have certainly caused Russia grief in the past, so let them deal with it.

  • Lonely Stalker||

    Other than that, what does Russia taking over that area have to do with your life?

    Imma Amerrican and imma insulted!!

    MUNICH! MUUNIICHH!

  • ||

    Missing in your analysis is how the Ukranians feel about all this.

    I know many other countries that were historically part of a larger empire that are now very happy not to be.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Hazel,

    Thanks for your civil response to my comments. Yes, you have a very good point. The Austro-Hungarian Empire comes to mind. I imagine this whole business with the Ukraine will probably end with The Crimea once again passing to Russian control. But who knows. Thanks again for your comment Too bad that others commenting on this web can not be as civil as you are.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    After Americans get over this shock and indignation about Russia's "invasion" of a place with historical ties to Russia, racial and ethnic, perhaps they will remember a bit of there own history, although I doubt it since most Americans can't even remember what happened last week, much less the hundreds and hundreds and more hundreds of years of Russian history.

    I am referring to the U.S. invasion of Mexico in 1846 so we could get a hold of those warm water ports and other stuff in California, and ended up getting the entire Southwest in the bargain. This was a U.S. invasion of another truly sovereign nation (Mexico) with no racial or ethnic ties to the U.S. whatsoever at the time. Yes I know, we gave them some money and forced them to sign a treaty which made it all legal.

    If nothing else just think of Russia's moves in the Ukraine as a type of Russian "Manifest Destiny".

  • CampingInYourPark||

    After Americans get over this shock and indignation about Russia's "invasion" of a place with historical ties to Russia, racial and ethnic, perhaps they will remember a bit of there own history

    Like the American colonists and their historical, racial, and ethnic ties to the British

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Good point. Shows you might be intelligent after all.

  • ||

    And Mexico (or rather the Spanish) stole it from the Native Americans.

    How long did they really hold it for, and how many Mexicans actually lived there?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    The United States still invaded Mexico in 1846. One of the many Americans who opposed it was U.S. Grant. Remember him?

  • Sevo||

    False equivalence is false.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    I just love your one liner literary farts!

  • JFree||

    for someone attempting to lecture others about history, you are rather stupid about history.

    The Mexican War was initiated because Texas and half a dozen other provinces were at war with the central government in Mexico (Remember the Alamo and all that) and had been sporadically for Mexico's entire existence. Texas realized that independence was not viable (which is why there are no countries called Yucatan/Oaxaca/Zacatecas/Rio Grande/etc today) and wanted to join the US. US resisted because of internal balance of power stuff between slave/free states and because most of the US didn't want to take over Texas' existing war with Mexico. Couple of elections later that changed - Texas sent out feelers to Britain to get involved - Polk was elected - Texas became a state - and the US was now at war with Mexico.

    Admit it - you are nothing but a useful idiot for Russia.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Thanks so much for your bowel movement in print. I am looking forward to more of your combined literary farts and history lectures. Have a nice day Ass Chunk.

  • JFree||

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Excuse any typos in my comments. I could have proof read my own remarks better.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Putin is making the smart play. Using the slightest pretext to retake the Crimea has lots of upside for him with relatively little downside. I expect he will deal with the rest of the Ukraine through political means which will be easier since Russian troops will be in the Crimea.

    As for the other stuff, a certain amount of real politik is necessary.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    THANKS.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Why does anyone care about putin when we have a real threat to our freedoms here?
    All eyes to CT
    http://www.infowars.com/second.....-you-dead/

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I don't really care about Putin. I do care about Ukrainians that want to live free, or with as much freedom as they can attain. I can care about that and 2nd amendment rights simultaneously.

  • VicRattlehead||

    I wish them well on their venture too.
    However there is not here, and here the danger is clear and present from our own "elected" monsters. I would rather see an article from "The Judge" on how CT politicians are ignoring the constitution and are on the verge of declaring war upon their citizens for exercising their god given right to own a means of self defense.

  • Robert||

    Will they have more freedom as part of Ukraine or part of Russia?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Robert,

    Ideas of freedom in the Ukraine and Russia are NOT the same as they are in the U.S. Regrettably these places have no history of "freedom" in the American sense. However, there is hope. They got rid of the Tsars and the Communists so things may be looking up.

  • GamerFromJump||

    They'll have the same freedom we do - to obey and ask permission.

  • Robert||

    I keep being reminded that Putin has quite a cheering section in the extreme "right" in the USA and probably many other countries. They think he's on the front line of a common resistance to Islamists, and they don't exactly mind the fag bashing. They also like the "West"'s being knocked down a peg; I bet you didn't even know some of the extreme "right" is of that sentiment!

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Absolutely correct. However, these pro-Russian sentiments are not necessarily over in the extreme right. The Russians want security and law and order and Putin is providing it for them. Outfits like Pussy Riot do not add to that need.

  • Creeper||

    I agree with 99% of everything Judge Nap ever talks or writes about but i got to call out a glaring error in this piece...crimea has a pact with russia to keep up to 25,000 russian troops there. 16,000 have been stationed there since the 90's. russia has troops ready to go in case those 16,000 are threatened. they haven't crossed over yet.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    This is still an excellent article by The Judge.

  • 1733Savannah||

    Funny. The judge assumes that China isn't doing just that? Perhaps he should check into the alliances forming in the Caribbean, and cutting off trade if you are not in this group or that. Forget that Russia is just 90 miles off our coast?

    Ukraine is Russia's landlord when it comes to Crimea. Russia must ask for Ukraine's permission.

    I am rooting for the Ukrainians who are smart enough to see that this is a golden opportunity to create a country free from corruption,where there is the Rule of Law, and liberty and justice for all. That's what we should be concerned with, if on a moral level.

    Putin ignored the Rule of Law when he didn't get permission from Ukraine to do what he is doing in Crimea, and needs to be called to the carpet on that.

  • Cletus Starfish||

    As far as I've heard, there's no actual evidence that the U.S. had anything to do with Yanukovich's ousting. That coupled with a few other assertions about the U.S. supposedly fomenting revolutions makes it difficult to take this article without a grain of salt.

    I'm not suggesting that the U.S. didn't support the uprisings in Egypt or Ukraine, to use Napolitano's two major examples, but he greatly overstates the American role in these conflicts.

  • ||

    The Russians in Crimea have it made,they all sit in comfy offices but have not been accepted by the natives.Their lives will be even worse now that Putin is back in charge,but they'll still have those sweet jobs.

  • ||

    Maybe it's time to build Goldwater's wall around the USA & let the rest of the world go hang.

  • jdgalt||

    The Orange Revolution was not the work of US government agents, it was Mr. Soros and his "Open Society Institute". I suspect that's true this time, too.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement