Before H.R. 758, there was H.R. 447. It passed 381-2 with 48 not voting on Feb. 10, 2014. What was wrong with H.R. 447?
What was wrong was that it butted into the affairs of the Ukrainians. It freely dispensed its calls, its advice, and its condemnations. Ukraine was having domestic problems, but the U.S. House stuck its nose into it. This soon led to the U.S. taking sides and getting ever more deeply involved, and that too was what was wrong with this early resolution. Before long, the U.S. was sanctioning Russia. One step leads to another. That much is predictable even if the actual steps are not.
This resolution justifies its meddling by saying “a democratic, prosperous, and independent Ukraine is in the national interest of the United States.”
Suppose this is true for a moment. This statement might be true of Ukraine if we do not examine it too closely, and it might be true of 100 other countries; but does it follow that the U.S. government should in any way mix itself into the politics of all such countries? What seems attractive in the abstract or in a general sense or from the distance of Capitol Hill is not always attractive concretely and close up. Interventions breed complications. A nice-sounding goal always is costly to attain. Ukraine was then and is now an economic basket case, and, as it turns out, a political quagmire that has led to civil war.
The House of Representatives, if they had had any seykhel (smarts), simply should have kept their mouths shut and stayed out of it. Their greed for adding another nation to some kind of imaginary roster of allies in Europe overcame any common sense. Empire-building came first. The U.S. constantly prates about its allies and friends, and Americans lap it up, thinking that Great Britain, Germany, Japan and so on are somehow good for America, but what do Americans ever get out of them but higher taxes to pay?
Was this rationale really true? Ukraine had a democracy in November of 2013, and it broke down in street protests. So what democracy exactly was the House supporting 3 months later after so many protests? Within 2 weeks, the situation came to the existing government fleeing.
A prosperous Ukraine? There wasn’t any and the House’s advice was not about to produce it. Ukraine was far from prosperous and getting the U.S. involved was very unlikely to alter this situation. Does the U.S. government actually know how to generate the wealth of nations? Will IMF loans make Ukraine prosperous? Has the House succeeded yet in making America prosperous?
Did Ukraine really matter to the national interest of the U.S.? What interest was that, anyway? What real difference did Ukraine make to America that justified that its government get involved? Any of us may have sympathy for any number of people, including Ukrainians. Does this mean our government is supposed to get involved with their government? This is asking for trouble because governments have all sorts of rivalries and frictions. They have internal issues and splits as well. When the U.S. meddles, it invariably chooses a side or invigorates another side. It creates problems and exacerbates them. Leave friendship and solidarity to individuals. Governments should stay neutral.
Congress alluded to an independent Ukraine? What did this mean? From Russia? Congress hoped for this, but did it really expect Russia to sit idly by? She hasn’t.
Did 381 Congressmen actually know what was going on in Ukraine? This is extremely doubtful. How many could understand the language? How many knew the parties involved? How many knew what actually transpired on the streets and in the halls of government?
Congress should have stayed out of this altogether. The default policy should be neutrality. The current default policy, as Murray Rothbard so acutely observed, is Wilsonian. It is to identify (or try to) the good guys and the bad guys, and then take sides with the good guys.
As I see it, the default policy in Washington has moved beyond this good guy/bad guy morality play. The policy has been to advance to Russia’s borders and then beyond. In the hidden recesses of the Washington mind has always been the idea of implanting the Western apparatus in Moscow, that is, to find a way for the West’s brand of fascism to conquer the steppes. This would be by an infiltration of western banks, debts, money, companies, language and culture. Ukraine is a stepping stone in that U.S. goal.
Putin senses this, which is why he propounds Russian civilization as different from decadent western civilization.
6:25 pm on December 11, 2014
