Posted on 03/10/2014 11:47:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I missed this on Friday but, having now read it, Rand’s surprisingly hawkish take on Russia in Time this morning makes more sense. If his Breitbart op-ed was aimed at Cruz, I think I can guess who the Time one was aimed at.
By the way, any bets on how a secession referendum held in a small province under military occupation by a superpower next door might go? Ron Paul’s been conspicuously sensitive to the perils of occupation in the past, but not so much here.
Id like to see the people [in Crimea] make the decision rather than outside parties, [Ron] Paul tells U.S. News. Its pure hypocrisy on our part to think we have the moral high ground. The only question that remains is: Will there be an honest election? And I dont see any reason there cant be an honest election.…
We say, We want you to be good democrats and have elections, but if they dont elect the right people then we complain about it and throw them out, like we did in Egypt, Paul says. Theyre doing exactly what they should do [in Crimea]. They should have an election.…
Obamas sanctions against Ukrainian and Russian officials, Paul alleges, are acts of theft.
Thats just people looking to start a war, Paul says. This is criminal, its stealing and will just aggravate things and escalate things. Sanctions are acts of war to freeze assets if youre at war with Hitler and theres a declared war, thats a little different, but to do this so easily and casually as we do, thats just looking for a fight.
Paul does support having nongovernmental election monitors supervise the Crimea vote — as long as they’re not Americans, since “we would send CIA agents over there.”
I take it Team Rand wouldn’t agree that freezing the assets of billionaire Russian kleptocrats is an impermissible act of “theft.” And I know for a fact that they wouldn’t agree that sanctions in this case are “criminal.” From the Time op-ed:
Economic sanctions and visa bans should be imposed and enforced without delay. I would urge our European allies to leverage their considerable weight with Russia and take the lead on imposing these penalties. I would do everything in my power to aggressively market and export Americas vast natural gas resources to Europe…
It is important that Russia becomes economically isolated until all its forces are removed from Crimea and Putin pledges to act in accordance with the international standards of behavior that respect the rights of free people everywhere…
I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it.
All of which raises the question: Is it better or worse for Rand to have Ron on TV giving the Paul 1.0 take on foreign policy? Arguably, the more attention Ron’s comments get, the more opportunities Rand has to show people that he’s more mainstream on this subject than his old man is. He’s running against the GOP establishment on one hand and against his father on the other, so theoretically the more Ron sounds off, the more Rand gets to attack (however obliquely). If, though, you’re like DrewM in suspecting that someone born and raised in libertarian politics, who twice endorsed his father for president and whose lurch towards the mainstream coincides with making noise about running for president himself, might indeed be a Paul at heart on foreign policy then maybe Ron speaking up isn’t a good idea. This is one of the great X factors in the next election: How much can hawks make Ron’s words stick to Rand? Given that most voters follow politics only casually, maybe they’ll dismiss “Ron = Rand” messaging as a bizarre attempt to make one candidate answer for the positions of another. Or, maybe Ron made enough of an impression on mainstream Republican voters over the last two cycles that there’s no avoiding this problem for Team Rand now. I honestly don’t know. I don’t even feel confident guessing whether Rand might ask Ron to lie low in the media if he concludes that doing so would help his presidential odds. Would Ron even agree to do that?
Anyway. It’ll be fun watching libertarians struggle with a perennial problem for members of the two major parties, namely, how far their guy should stray from core beliefs in the name of electability. Usually that doesn’t come up until the general election; for Rand it’ll be an issue in the primary. Presumably half the movement is cursing Rand today for taking a position on Russia that conflicts sharply with dad’s and half the movement is applauding him for a canny move that improves his shot at the nomination. I wonder how many of that latter group agree with Drew’s take, that President Rand would be more like President Ron than anyone expects.
Good point, but they will try. Hypocrisy knows no bounds, not to mention that the US killed a lot of Serbs and bombed the Chinese embassy. How many Ukranians have the Russians killed in the Crimean action? Wesley Clark and Bill Clinton are war criminals who got away with it.
Demographics is destiny. We become America today, because of bringing people here and amassing numbers.
Countries come and go. We should enforce our immigration laws, change immigration dictates and actually secure the border.
Big picture time folks.
This isn’t about putin protecting Russian speaking people from being persecuted in Crimea. Putin is putting the empire back together. Forget elections. There is no such thing as a , ‘Free and fair election’, in that part of the world. There’s a better chance of a F&F election in Chicago than in Crimea.
Ronald Reagan’s greatest gift to the world was to recognize what the USSR really was, and acted accordingly. Putin is attempting to accomplish what Reagan did only in reverse.
When do we take action? When the USSR installed parliament in Poland votes to join with Russia? Paul was a young person when the USSR empire crumbled and fell apart. Maybe he doesn’t fully understand what he is up against?
They only thing left to be able to equate Putin with Hitler is the targeting of Jews. I just hope that a year from now, I don’t get sent on a business trip to Berlin of the USSR.
RE: The US and EU cannot have it both ways. They cant say, for example, that the right of Albanians to self-determination in Kosovo trumps Serbias right to territorial integrity, and then turn around and say that Ukraines right to territorial integrity trumps the right of Russians in Crimea to self-determination.
Well, doesn’t this remind us of THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA in the 1860’s?
The question is what is Crimea compared to Dixie?
What if Austria or France were to start reassembling their former empires. Would be also say that it is none of our business?
(In before that's different.)
The Russians have been militarily present in Crimea for over two hundred years. What's changed is the fear that Ukraine will move to a closer relationship with the European Union and NATO which my jeopardize Russian access to iand use of its only ice-free naval base.
‘swhy a Libertarian will never become president of the US.
Except there is a sizable Tatar community, who were there long before the Russkies or Ukrainians, who don't want to join the Nazi-government in Moscow.
By the way, BS on calling the "regime in Kiev" a "regime," secondly, but, firstly, "nazi." Lay off the Alex Jones or RT nonsense.
Yeah, because we all know that a majority vote with Comrade Ivan with his Kalashnikov counting the votes, who has already taken control over the area, is going to be a legitimate referendum.
Oh, so you think that we should start a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine?
What, are you a Paulista? So how's a non-democratically-elected government in Crimea, which is already illegally occupied by Comrade Ivan and his Kalishnikov, who are renown for stealing the vote in Moscow, a "referendum of self-determination organized in an autonomous republic"?
By the way, Crimea isn't actually all Russian. There's a sizable Tatar community who've been on the land long before even the Russians owned it. I'd like to see if, under normal circumstances, Crimea would really vote to join Comrade Putin's nazi government.
Where'd I say that, Paulistinian? Though, as a matter of fact, I'm quite confident the Russians are going to be starting a war with us, sooner or later.
I thought the map you showed of the USA was settled after much bloodshed was spilled....
No there's not - thus your gratuitous assertion is rendered moot.
I'm no expert here, but the Treaty of Paris which ended the Crimean War was actually signed in March of 1856, wasn't it?
In Crimea, a referendum on sovereignty from Ukraine is scheduled for March 16.
In Scotland, a referendum on sovereignty from Britain that was initiated by the Scottish National Party is scheduled for September 18.
In Catalonia, a referendum on sovereignty from Spain is due to be held November 9.
That’s the way people want to go.
WHO are you to tell them what to do?
That’s right.
In Crimea not a shot was fired and no one died.
RE: In Crimea not a shot was fired and no one died.
Not yet...
You made my point, thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.