Senate warmongers continue to pose a very serious security threat to Americans. A group of them has introduced “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014”. John McCain introduced the bill. The dishonor roll of co-sponsoring Senate warmongers follows (from McCain’s web site):
“The Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014 is co-sponsored by Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Bob Corker (R-TN) Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), John Hoeven (R-ND), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Cornyn (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mark Kirk (R-IL), John Barrasso (R-WY), Jim Risch (R-ID), Dan Coats (R-IN), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Rob Portman (R-OH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John Thune (R-SD) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ).”
These Senators will remain a threat to American security until they are removed from office and replaced by others who support policies of neutrality and non-interference of the U.S. government in the affairs of foreign countries.
McCain’s statements about this bill provide strong evidence of the aggressive intent of this bill. The actions called for in the bill reinforce this conclusion by calling for a number of aggressive measures aimed at Russia.
McCain views diplomacy as a means for the U.S. to control outcomes in Ukraine. In this warped and meddlesome view, U.S. aggression is a necessary step to make diplomacy effective. In McCain’s view, the U.S. must beat up on Russia in order to make her behave as the U.S. wants and/or to achieve U.S. control over events internal to Ukraine and Russia.
McCain says “The Administration wants a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Ukraine. So do we. The Administration wants to prevent conflict with Russia. So do we.” Why does the U.S. government even concern itself with Ukraine? Why has it concerned itself in the past by encouraging and then supporting the results of the Feb. 21 coup d’etat in Kiev? Since Ukraine’s political struggles have no significant bearing or impact on the domestic tranquility of Americans or their common defense or their general welfare, there is only one answer. The U.S. government wants to extend its control for its own purposes, not those of Americans.
McCain’s “diplomatic solution” would be unnecessary if the U.S. had not helped to create that crisis. McCain’s diplomacy, however, is but another term for U.S. aggression. As he says “But unless our diplomacy is backed by greater pressure on Russia, diplomacy cannot be effective, and Putin’s aggression will continue to grow and may spread beyond Ukraine. The Administration is not imposing enough costs on Russia. Our legislation would.”
“Greater pressure” on Russia and “imposing enough costs” on Russia mean aggression on Russia.
Specifically, the Senate warmongers want, in McCain’s words, to adopt the following aggressive measures:
“Impose much tougher sanctions on Russia.
“Do more to expose and crack down on Russian corruption and its malign effects, including by requiring the U.S. government to issue a report on the personal net wealth of senior Russian officials, including the President of the Russian Federation.
“Authorize more robust military assistance, such as anti-air, anti-tank, and other defensive weapons, for Ukraine.
“Offer greater support for our allies in central Europe and push for a bolder strategic response from NATO to Putin’s aggression.
“Do more to shore up key partners such as Moldova and Georgia.
Only by reading the bill itself can we gauge exactly what is being called for. Sticking with McCain’s summary in this blog, certainly if the U.S. supplies weapons to Ukraine, the U.S. escalates its already substantial intrusion into Ukraine. This takes sides with the Ukraine interim government against separatists. It takes sides with Ukraine against a possible war with Russia. Supplying aid and arms to Great Britain helped bring the U.S. into two world wars.
Calling for further U.S. support to Moldova and Georgia guarantees more intense confrontations with Russia.
NATO has already become a rather loose and aggressive cannon without U.S. pushing it further in the direction of confronting Russia, as this bill wants.
Sanctions on Russia and Russians are aggressive and easily can cross the blurry line into acts of war.
This bill is aggressive. It calls for creating, intensifying and prolonging conflicts and confrontations with Russia. To what end? There is actually no clear purpose to any of these steps! The stated purpose is “to advance a strategic U.S. response to deter Russian aggression in Europe.”
What aggression in Europe? Where has Russia launched an invasion? Nowhere. Russia may yet invade Ukraine if the civil war in that country intensifies. Why should the U.S. even wish to get involved in deterring this possibility? To do so places the U.S. in direct hostilities with Russia, for no apparent gain other than the U.S. wants to control the politics of Ukraine. The U.S. cannot argue that the Ukraine is beyond the interest or sphere of influence of Russia, not in view of their joint history. The U.S. cannot treat Russia as a pariah in its backyard when the U.S. has invaded many countries to its south, sometimes several times, such as Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, El Salvador and Panama.
If ever there was a senseless bill that enhanced the prospects of U.S. military engagement and war for no apparent benefit to Americans other than those in and allied with the War Party, the “Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014” is such a bill.
9:59 am on May 5, 2014
