Ukrainian Crisis Explained – How The West Lost The Crimea

Once again the failed foreign policy of this nation has been thrust in to the spotlight. Russia has aggressively moved to protect it national interests in a bold strike into the Crimea and frankly, there isn’t much that the world can do about it.

The time to act is long past over in Eastern Europe. President Bush (and Mitt Romney) correctly assessed the danger of Russian expansionism and economic rebuilding as a threat to world peace and a foe to the United States. Bush countered with an aggressive US policy in Poland and Eastern Europe to act as a counterweight. In 2008, President Obama abandoned those plans in hopes of ensuring a brokered plan with Iran on the suppression of nukes. To make matters worse, we have funded the crypto-fascists of the EU and their ambitious plans to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, thus giving the Russians an excuse to act belligerently. The ‘democracy movement’ in these nations is heavily funded and promoted by the US, and is in violation of the 1994 Budapest agreement.

These plans failed miserably as it provided Putin an opportunity to expand its interests, gave Russia the peacemaker tag in the Middle East, and exposed the US as weak on Iran (which of course, Putin expanded rather than suppressed). America is now faced with a resurgent Russia and a nuclear armed Iran and nuclear proliferation in an area of the world where the native people have the restraint of a hungry Billy goat.

Americans are asking for the world and Obama to do something, with a variety of suggestions. None will work. When an enemy is building tanks and roaring across established borders, the time for diplomacy is long past.

The Ukrainian problem is of our own making by an administration whose foreign policy is shallow and banal at best. The people of Ukraine are faced with being between two world powers and are under the illusion that they are fighting for freedom, when in fact, the banking and financial cartels of the EU may be worse for them in the long run. This is not so much a freedom fight for the Ukrainian people as it is an economic battle between Obama and his fascist thug friends in the EU versus the old style dictator Putin. It is Egypt 2.0.

Russia has not moved out of the Crimea and is protecting the largely Russian population that lives there as well as the bases and economic interests of Russia in the region. Putin did not bluster, or threaten military action — he simply acted, and prepared his nation for Western economic sanctions. He moved his troops into a region that is largely pro Russia; the bases and ports at Sevastopol are critical to Russia’s security. The Russian forces have not moved beyond the Crimea and are substantial enough to repeal any Ukrainian meddling.

Will Putin be viewed as a scoundrel who acted as a bully? Most certainly, and will pay an economic price in the short run. However, in the long run he has ensured security for Russian people in the region and the economic and military interests of his nation. He is not interested in building a “global community.” He is acting in the best interests of Russia.

Our own President could learn a few lessons here about the proper application of force and military influence.

Thomas Purcell is a nationally syndicated columnist and host of the Liberty Never Sleeps podcast hour and author of “Shotgun Republic.”

If you would like to read more about Thomas Purcell’s thoughts on this issue you can read more at LibertyNeverSleeps.com