From Lew Rockwell at Mises.org:
Few people today ask the most
important question about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Many
people want America to stay out of the fight, but even they don’t ask
the vital question. Why does the world face a crisis today? Why has a
border dispute between Russia and Ukraine escalated to the point where
people fear nuclear war?
The answer is simple. America, under the “leadership” of brain-dead
Biden and the forces controlling him, has done this and, by doing so,
brought the world to the brink of disaster. As always, the great Dr. Ron
Paul gets it right: “Three weeks into this terrible war, the US is not
pursuing talks with Russia. As Antiwar.com recently reported, instead of
supporting negotiations between Ukraine and Russia that could lead to a
ceasefire and an end to the bloodshed, the US government is actually
escalating the situation which can only increase the bloodshed.
The constant flow of US and allied weapons into Ukraine and talk of
supporting an extended insurgency does not seem designed to give Ukraine
a victory on the battlefield but rather to hand Russia what Secretary
of State Blinken called ‘a strategic defeat.’
It sounds an awful lot like the Biden Administration intends to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian.
The only solution for the US is to get out. Let the Russians and
Ukrainians reach an agreement. That means no NATO for Ukraine and no US
missiles on Russia’s borders? So what! End the war then end NATO.”
Let’s look at an analogy that will help us understand Dr. Paul’s
point. For years, the Ukrainian government has attacked an area in the
Donbas region that has seceded from Ukraine and formed an independent,
pro-Russian, republic. Just before Putin moved against Ukraine,
Ukraianians increased the scale and scope of their attack. Rick Rozoff
describes what they did: “Two-thirds of Ukrainian army servicemen have
been amassed along the Donbas contact line, Eduard Basurin, spokesman
for the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) militia, said on
Thursday.
“Another three brigades are on their way [to Donbas], which is 20,000
to 25,000 troops more. The total number will reach 150,000, not to
mention the nationalists. This is about two-thirds of Ukrainian Armed
Forces’ personnel,” Basurin said on the Rossiya 1 television channel
(VGTRK) on Thursday.
Ukrainian troops are stationed along the 320-kilometer front line, he said.”
Unlike what has just happened, the Ukrainian attack did not result in
US sanctions on Ukraine. There were no meetings of the UN to condemn
Ukrainian aggression. There was no talk of world war. On the contrary,
Ukraine government used American weapons in its attack and asked America
for more weapons to continue their attack. Let’s listen to Rick Rozoff
again: “The Armed Forces of Ukraine used the American anti-tank missile
system Javelin in the hostilities in Donbas. This was announced by the
head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of
Ukraine Kirill Budanov in an interview….
Budanov said that ideally, the U.S. would help deter any Russian
incursion, through additional military aid and increased diplomatic and
economic pressure, including more sanctions against Russia and the
seizure and blocking of Russian banking accounts.
Also, in addition to U.S. aid already promised and delivered,
including Mark VI patrol boats, Javelin anti-armor systems and AN/TPQ-53
light counter-fire radar systems, Ukraine seeks additional air, missile
and drone defense systems and electronic jamming devices, Budonov said.
Patriot missile batteries and counter rocket, artillery and mortar
systems are on Ukraine’s wish list.
The AN/TPQ-53 systems were used to great effect, Ukraine military officials have previously reported.
Budanov said the Javelin systems have also been used against Russian
forces. Those, along with Turkish-manufactured drones, used against
Russian-aligned separatist artillery troops, have a significant
psychological deterrent value, said Budanov.”
Why the difference? We think that the US should not have shipped arms
to Ukraine. Doing this made the situation worse. But for what we’re
saying now, it doesn’t matter what you think of the policy. The key
point is that because there was no international outcry and no
sanctions, the matter remained a local fight. If brain dead Biden and
his gang had reacted to the so-called Russian “invasion” in the same
way, the matter would have remained a local quarrel. Russia and Ukraine
would have made a deal and that would be that.
The neocon warmongers and other defenders of “democracy,” who
unfortunately include some deluded “libertarians” object. Don’t we have a
duty to resist “aggression?” The answer is clear: No, we don’t. We do
not have a duty to evaluate every foreign quarrel and assess who is at
fault. We do not have a duty to require leaders of regimes we, or rather
our masters in Washington, don’t like to accept existing boundaries of
countries as unchangeable. We should reject the false doctrine of
“collective security,” which makes every border disputes a world war.
The great American historian Charles Beard recognized what was wrong
with “collective security” in the 1930s. In his article, “Giddy Minds
and Foreign Quarrels,” he asked: “On what … should the foreign policy of
the United States be based? Here is one answer and it is not
excogitated in any professor’s study or supplied by political agitators.
It is the doctrine formulated by George Washington, supplemented by
James Monroe, and followed by the Government of the United States until
near the end of the nineteenth century, when the frenzy for foreign
adventurism burst upon the country. This doctrine is simple. Europe has a
set of ‘primary interests’ which have little or no relation to us, and
is constantly vexed by ‘ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or
caprice.’ The United States is a continental power separated from Europe
by a wide ocean which, despite all changes in warfare, is still a
powerful asset of defense. In the ordinary or regular vicissitudes of
European politics the United States should not become implicated by any
permanent ties. We should promote commerce, but force ‘nothing.’ We
should steer dear of hates and loves. We should maintain correct and
formal relations with all established governments without respect to
their forms or their religions, whether Christian, Mohammedan, Shinto,
or what have you.”
Beard then responded to
those who wanted to scrap our traditional policy of non-intervention
with “collective security”: “In the rest of the world, outside this
hemisphere, our interests are remote and our power to enforce our will
is relatively slight. Nothing we can do for Europeans will substantially
increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. Nothing we can
do for Asiatics will materially increase our trade or add to our, or
their, well-being. With all countries in Europe and Asia, our relations
should be formal and correct. As individuals we may indulge in hate and
love, but the Government of the United States embarks on stormy seas
when it begins to love one power and hate another officially.”
We should heed Beard’s wisdom today. Otherwise, the world may go up in flames.
