Susan here. There have been a lot of accusations about Obama being “weak” in not invading Syria or stopping the Russian “invasion” of Crimea. But the truth is, it’s not Obama who is “weak”, it’s the United States that’s weak.
The truth is, we are not living in the unipolar world of the 90s, or even the bipolar world of the Cold War. We are currently living in a multipolar world where both old superpowers and newer superpowers are emerging, and even imposing sanctions on a particular country doesn’t have the effect it once had. For instance, Iran is still chugging along quite nicely despite a Western embargo.
Where Obama is weak is in failing to recognize this basic fact. In this new world, you can’t go around making threats and “redlines” and promises you can’t keep. Because the truth is, Americans do not have the stomach for the sacrifices it would take to make war on other superpowers, and furthermore, we don’t have the money.
Much ado has been made about Obama’s non-attendance of a recent White House “security meeting” on Crimea, but in this instance, I think he’s doing the right thing, for once, by not attending. Crimea is 85% ethnic-Russian, so that’s like Russia invading itself. Not to mention she already has a naval base there. And despite the rhetoric from “transitional government” in Kiev, there is only so much western Ukraine can break away from Russia’s influence. As I said, a multipolar world.
3 Comments.
Historians have to edit history to make a coherent readable story. Actual history is more complicated.
Eastern Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire. Western Ukraine was part of the Austrian Empire. After WWI, the victorious allies punished the defeated Central Powers and also the new Soviet Union for abandoning the war effort. The eastern part of the German Empire, parts of the Austrian Empire, and some western bits of the Soviet Union formed Poland.
Then in ’39, the Nationalist Socialists and the Soviet Socialists agreed to be allies for about a year, and Germany took Western Poland while the Soviet Union took Eastern Poland and put it into two Soviet Republics, Belarus and the Ukraine. The former members of the Austrian Empire were not at all happy about this and fought it as long as they could before being crushed by Stalin.
Then Stalin starved the Ukraine to feed the rest of the Soviet Union, inculcating a deep hatred of all things Soviet and Russian, even among Russian-speaking Russian Orthodox who were also starved just for living in the Ukraine. The Ukraine was the ‘breadbasket’, first of the Russian Empire and then of the Soviet Union, a ‘breadbasket’ that, under Stalin, saw none of the bread it produced.
After WWII, Khrushchev gave the Crimea to the Ukraine. The Crimea was traditionally part of the central state of Russia (apparently, Khrushchev had a dacha in the Crimea, and thought the region would be better run for apparatchiks with dachas under the rule of the regional Ukrainian authorities than under central Russian control).
The region known as the Ukraine demanded and got its independence from the Soviet Union and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The region is a mix of pieces of the old Austrian Empire, pieces of the old Russian Empire that were not considered Russia proper, and the Crimea which was traditionally part of Russia.
The formerly Austrian Empire bits, bits strongly supported by the West, hate the formerly Russian Empire bits, who are strongly supported by Russia. Citizens from the formerly Austrian Empire bits march with baseball bats to remove leaders from the formerly Russian Empire bit and replace them with leaders from the formerly Austrian Empire bit. (Of course, when the Ukraine has leaders from the formerly Austrian Empire bit, members of the formerly Russian empire bit march to replace them.)
Most Ukrainians do not want to rejoin Russia, even the Russian speaking Russian Orthodox (thanks to Stalin, who wasn’t even Russian), but neither do the Russian speaking Russian Orthodox want to be ruled by the formerly Austrian Ukrainians.
Citizens of the Ukraine from the former Russian Empire like the cheap money and cheap oil and gas that Russia has been providing, while the citizens from the formerly Austrian Empire bits hate the strings attached to that cheap money, oil, and gas.
The Western Press depicts the Ukrainians from the former Austrian Empire bits as patriots and the Ukrainians from the former Russian Empire bits as dupes and traitors, hoping for a John Perkins’ Economic Hit on the Ukraine.
***
Meanwhile, a similar job is being done on Syria by the Western Press. I have met lots of Syrian refugees, and they split. The Wahabbis all demand an end to the al-Assad government, and its replacement with a Saudi-run government that will purge Syria of all its filth, beginning those horrid Christian infidels who mostly support the current government. Those who are not Wahabbis want the current government to remain, a government which they say is bad, but is by far the best of a bunch of bad alternatives.
Again, the Western press clearly identifies all the anti-government Syrians as patriots, and all those who fear the alternative to the current government as dupes and traitors.
And, again, the West is hoping for a John Perkins’ Economic hit on Syria, a major part of the Fertile Crescent and a very valuable property.
Yet, the people in the former Russian Empire bit in Ukraine are replacing Ukrainian flags with Russian flags on their buildings, so maybe they’re letting bygones be bygones with the whole Stalin thing?
“Crimea is 85% ethnic-Russian, so that’s like Russia invading itself. Not to mention she already has a naval base there.”
Your overall argument and point may be fine but I am not a fan of these statements used as justification. Sure Crimea is 85% ethnic-Russian, but on a recent poll of Crimeans (pre-recent unrest) on whether they wanted stay independent or join Russia, only 23% said they wanted to join Russia, most of them (or their ancestors) emigrated from Russia for a reason. Large parts of rural Wisconsin are ethnic-Swedish, so If (very hypothetically) Sweden were to invade, would that just be like Sweden invading itself? I don’t think so.
Oh so there is a Russian military (naval) installation there they they rent the land for … therefore the whole region is practically Russian anyway and we should just give it to Russia? By that logic the majority of the countries in the world should just give themselves to the US because the US rents land from them for military bases already. Again your overall argument and conclusion may be fine but these two points used to back it up are utter rubbish.