My suggestion also goes for EU officials such as Germany's Merkel. I suspect anything she says or does is entirely for domestic political consumption. You know, let the body politic know you're on top of things.
There are times, I believe, when the truest, most effective leadership boils down to completely avoiding any displays of public response. This would be totally unexpected and would drive those who seek to push our buttons nuts. The Russians already know the various western governments are capable of exerting economic pressure against their country. And these same governments know Russia can hurt them in terms of oil and natural gas trade. The only result our rhetoric has achieved is to mobilize Russian lawmakers to back Putin.
You may well ask, "How far are you willing to let Russia go in this crisis?" Fair enough. If Russia wants to annex Crimea or even annex all of the Ukraine, I wouldn't lift a finger in opposition. I wouldn't even freeze assets or cancel visas or even suggest any kind of economic retaliation. As to what the EU would choose to do, I think it's high time - in fact, long overdue - that the EU stand on its own two feet. If the EU desires the influence it thinks its economic might warrants, it's time for them to put on big boy pants and establish its own military - independent of NATO. And, much to Russia's consternation, that could mean German acquisition of nuclear weapons - that is, assuming the Germans don't already have them.
When I was running for the office of US President against Obama in 2012), my political contract* contained this provision (# 5 of 31):
QUOTE:
FIVE: Under no circumstances, during my presidency, will the United States militarily intervene in the affairs of any foreign nation without a declaration of war by Congress. In addition, all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from all foreign nations, except for the token numbers needed at our embassies. This will include total withdrawal from NATO and will also include advisors we station in foreign nations in support of terrorist suppression and training of local forces. Bottom line: All of these forces are to come home.
:UNQUOTE.
If I had been elected US President, then it would have been solely up to the EU as to how it would choose to respond to this crisis - militarily or otherwise. But I, as President, would not have weighed in with any offer of assistance or sanctions. In fact, if Congress would have voted to respond, I would have vetoed that response.
But why give Russia a free hand?
I'm not giving Russia a free hand - I'm just denying Putin the attention he desires. The world economy is so firmly interlocked, that no nation can escape its machinations. If foreign governments offended by Putin's actions wish to punish him, while keeping in mind he could punish them, they could silently do so without heating up the rhetoric. Again, such "heating" is meant for domestic consumption only, but the Free World's leaders think they have to play to their constituencies.
Even if Russia annexed the entire Ukraine, they would find that a poor acquisition indeed. Not to mention: Third world countries would start looking at them as grasping imperialists. Nigerians, for example, might think: "We had our own separatist rebellion we put down in 1970. Are you going to suggest we hold a referendum in the area known as Biafra to see if those citizens still wish to secede? Are you going to sponsor a vote in Chechnya to see if they want their independence from Russia?"
That's right: Russia is playing a dangerous game by encouraging the secession of Crimea. Many established governments the world over fear secession, so Russia would not gain many friends among them by encouraging this in their own backyard.
That's right: An appearance of giving Putin a free hand would be an illusion - for he has no free hand. In the long-run, he'd have to pay consequences - seen and unforeseen. Bottom line? I don't think he thought this out very carefully.
The need for a Russian counterbalance
So, why did Putin act in such apparent haste and counter to his long-range interests? He's not a stupid man, by any means. I'm sure he distrusts what he sees as constant attempts at encroachment by the USA. And, frankly, I agree with him on this. The USA is not to be trusted - so much so, that the world really needs Russia as a counterbalance to secret US designs concerning its desire to rule the world. I wish the EU had acted more decisively in asserting its own independence and leadership by, among other actions, disbanding NATO and ordering American forces to leave the continent. The EU could have been this counterbalance, but found itself undermined by US interests working in tandem with homegrown elites allied with those interests.
I don't hold out much hope that China will provide a check against US power, for they are too corrupt and are poisoning their own environment. And the Islamic Union is a concept that the US and allies have doggedly attempted to undermine for decades. As for Africa? US forces - military and otherwise - are laboring mightily to make sure Africa maintains its historic role - as a provider of raw materials to western economies.
As strange as it might sound to say this, Putin may very well represent the only bulwark left against a New World Order thoroughly dominated by the Americans.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
Inventor of Cross-Sectional Representation*, the only governance system that
can effectively challenge nationalism.
Footnotes:
my political contract* - I was the only presidential candidate in US history to offer a written contract in exchange for votes. This link connects to that contract:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html
Cross-Sectional Representation* - http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html
No comments:
Post a Comment