Ah yes in the usual Neo-con diatribe Charles Krauthammer forgets the military option and proposes throwing money as a solution. Whatever happened to that gung-ho attitude?
Of course he bewails not maintaining the occupation of Iraq, and ponders why are we not fully embroiled in Syria. He bemoans Putin's great diplomacy in massing troops on the Ukrainian border, if only we would stop dithering and do the same.
Diplomacy is only diplomacy if you scream very loudly; if not a fully fledged temper tantrum at least stamp your foot he whines.
His solution, throw money at the situation and it will all be fine.
Yes, $15 billion is a lot of money. But it’s less than one-half of one-tenth of 1 percent of the combined E.U. and U.S. GDP. And expending treasure is infinitely preferable to expending blood. Especially given the strategic stakes: Without Ukraine, there’s no Russian empire.Indeed the world would be such a fine place if everyone took an aggressive stance, what in fact Chuck is whining about is diplomacy; what he is propositioning is more aggression. The one thing he knows is that if the West take a more aggressive stance then Russia will also escalate its belligerence. We can then return to the hedonistic days of the cold war, so sorely missed by all.
As with all warmongers they always want to escalate the situation to such an extent that a war footing is taken and this in turn feeds their world view. There is nothing that might cannot resolve and interventionism is the only way forward.
I am trying to think of one imposition of democracy that has been a success when it hasn't come from its own people, of course as any good warmonger would argue; its because we haven't imposed it hard enough.
Oh and as Chuck knows deep in his little black heart, $15 billion is a pittance, especially if it reignites the cold war, then the money will just simply roll into the MIC.
As everyone knows
We will be welcomed with flowers, and in this 100th anniversary year of the start of WW1 they might well be poppies.