Posted on 07/25/2014 11:10:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
In 1933, the Holodomor was playing out in Ukraine.
After the "kulaks," the independent farmers, had been liquidated in the forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture, a genocidal famine was imposed on Ukraine through seizure of her food production.
Estimates of the dead range from two to nine million souls.
Walter Duranty of the New York Times, who called reports of the famine "malignant propaganda," won a Pulitzer for his mendacity.
In November 1933, during the Holodomor, the greatest liberal of them all, FDR, invited Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov to receive official U.S. recognition of his master Stalin's murderous regime.
On August 1, 1991, just four months before Ukraine declared its independence of Russia, George H. W. Bush warned Kiev's legislature:
"Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."
In short, Ukraine's independence was never part of America's agenda. From 1933 to 1991, it was never a U.S. vital interest. Bush I was against it.
When then did this issue of whose flag flies over Donetsk or Crimea become so crucial that we would arm Ukrainians to fight Russian-backed rebels and consider giving a NATO war guarantee to Kiev, potentially bringing us to war with a nuclear-armed Russia?
From FDR on, U.S. presidents have felt that America could not remain isolated from the rulers of the world's largest nation.
Ike invited Khrushchev to tour the USA after he had drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood. After Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba, JFK was soon calling for a new detente at American University.
Within weeks of Warsaw Pact armies crushing the Prague Spring in August 1968, LBJ was seeking a summit with Premier Alexei Kosygin.
After excoriating Moscow for the downing of KAL 007 in 1983, that old Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan was fishing for a summit meeting.
The point: Every president from FDR through George H. W. Bush, even after collisions with Moscow far more serious than this clash over Ukraine, sought to re-engage the men in the Kremlin.
Whatever we thought of the Soviet dictators who blockaded Berlin, enslaved Eastern Europe, put rockets in Cuba and armed Arabs to attack Israel, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 all sought to engage Russia's rulers.
Avoidance of a catastrophic war demanded engagement.
How then can we explain the clamor of today's U.S. foreign policy elite to confront, isolate, and cripple Russia, and make of Putin a moral and political leper with whom honorable statesmen can never deal?
What has Putin done to rival the forced famine in Ukraine that starved to death millions, the slaughter of the Hungarian rebels or the Warsaw Pact's crushing of Czechoslovakia?
In Ukraine, Putin responded to a U.S.-backed coup, which ousted a democratically elected political ally of Russia, with a bloodless seizure of the pro-Russian Crimea where Moscow has berthed its Black Sea fleet since the 18th century. This is routine Big Power geopolitics.
And though Putin put an army on Ukraine's border, he did not order it to invade or occupy Luhansk or Donetsk. Does this really look like a drive to reassemble either the Russian Empire of the Romanovs or the Soviet Empire of Stalin that reached to the Elbe?
As for the downing of the Malaysian airliner, Putin did not order that. Sen. John Cornyn says U.S. intelligence has not yet provided any "smoking gun" that ties the missile-firing to Russia.
Intel intercepts seem to indicate that Ukrainian rebels thought they had hit an Antonov military transport plane.
Yet, today, the leading foreign policy voice of the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain, calls Obama's White House "cowardly" for not arming the Ukrainians to fight the Russian-backed separatists.
But suppose Putin responded to the arrival of U.S. weapons in Kiev by occupying Eastern Ukraine. What would we do then?
John Bolton has the answer: Bring Ukraine into NATO.
Translation: The U.S. and NATO should go to war with Russia, if necessary, over Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea, though no U.S. president has ever thought Ukraine itself was worth a war with Russia.
What motivates Putin seems simple and understandable. He wants the respect due a world power. He sees himself as protector of the Russians left behind in his "near abroad." He relishes playing Big Power politics. History is full of such men.
He allows U.S. overflights to Afghanistan, cooperates in the P5+1 on Iran, helped us rid Syria of chemical weapons, launches our astronauts into orbit, collaborates in the war on terror and disagrees on Crimea and Syria.
But what motivates those on our side who seek every opportunity to restart the Cold War?
Is it not a desperate desire to appear once again Churchillian, once again heroic, once again relevant, as they saw themselves in the Cold War that ended so long ago?
Who is the real problem here?
The real question is Obama worse than Putin...there’s no doubt in my mind...
I thought Whoopie said Stalin was misunderstood?
Actually, if you are familiar with either, you’d know that Obama aspires to be Putin.
My concern is that zer0 is up there with Stalin hitler and Mao. We are in a world of hurt. We are being invaded in the south and our dear leader is out there fund raising.
Zer0 doesn’t have the stones to be Putin. Or Palin for that matter.
He needn’t aspire; he’s already there and then some. He just uses a different m.o. of deception on a massive scale.
Is Putin worse than Stalin? No, not yet, not nearly. We can give him time, but like other posters, I’m more worried about where Zero would go if he was unconstrained.
Not yet.
Our leader is hoping to win the prize though...
I don’t know, has Putin killed(murdered) 40 Million or so people yet? How many People has Putin Sentenced to the gulags? I would say “No”.
Not too long ago Buchanan was comparing this "leader" to the Pope. What Buchanan describes as "necessary" reapproachments with Moscow was merely appeasement and weakness. Hence the Russkies have kept on killing, and are still as much a threat to us as they were when the cold war supposedly ended. Even worse now, because we let down our guard as a nation.
Hence why defectors like Anatoliy Golitsyn and others warned us not to fall for any supposed liberalization of Russia. Until the KGB and underground communist structures are dismantled, the Reds will continue murdering people.
As for the U.S. supposedly launching a "U.S. backed coup" for a "legitimately elected leader." He's full of crap. This "leader" was violating the Ukrainian constitution, looting the treasury, dismantling the military, and having opponents picked up and beaten by his special police. He also did the exact opposite of what he campaigned for. Furthermore, he fled the country to a foreign enemy, wasn't even toppled, and the same government that was elected in 2012 remained in power.
Buchanan and the Ron Paul wing of the party are Russkie bootlickers and need to be purged from the party.
This is a practice that still goes on in Russia, though I do not know if they are "gulags." Political opponents are frequently sent to prisons, some are sent to psychiatric hospitals, things of that sort, still others are just killed. Stalin, however, isn't the problem. The problem is the system. It is the Soviet system that has killed over 60 million people since it came into being, and is still killing through the hands of its heirs, of which Putin is just a figurehead of.
Nope.
Rhetorical Headline Alert.
I had to read the article to tell if Buchanan is being serious. Of course he isn’t. I can’t even tell if morons like McCain or Boehner are being set up for such a silly comparison.
But as usual, Pat know his history. And is able to draw correct conclusions.
Putin’s probably bad news for America and American interests (among other things, Putin loves Iran), but is he really bad news for the Russian people? He’s done a lot to privatize and deregulate Russian industry, and he seems to have concern for Christianity and Christian values (unlike Stalin). In terms of domestic policy, Putin is light years ahead of Stalin.
At this point, it would be hard to tell which person would be more dangerous overall to America, especially since both despised us and neither of them shriveled up into an isolationist ball. Stalin certainly had more to work with and was lucky that FDR was a sympathizer, but I’d argue that Putin is smarter on his own merits. Putin has no need to capitulate to a moron like Hussein Soetoro, especially since they both share the common goal of destroying America.
We are being primed for war. Zero’s legacy will be WWW3.
Whoa. That's not going to go over well here.
That's not true. We've got that Facebook account where one of their guys admitted to it.
In regard to what?
We are being primed for war. Zero’s legacy will be WWW3.
And possibly millions of dead Americans.
In the past we could rest assured that we were being safeguarded. Not now.
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.