Let me stipulate right off the bat that this commentary has nothing to do with defending Russia's actions in Ukraine, nor condoning Putin's stand. Also, it has nothing to do with taking sides when it comes to the very complicated nature of Ukraine's internal strife. And finally, it has nothing to do with defending their deposed president in any way.
The way I look at all those issues is that it is none of my business as a U.S. citizen. Those are internal problem of a country half way around the world and I see no compelling reason for me to take a stand one way or the other.
I also admit and recognize that insofar as there were (and still are) civil uprisings in the country, with different factions (ethnic and ideological) having their own reasons for it, many of which are perfectly legitimate (whether we're talking about corruption, oppression, mismanagement, etc), it is not up to me to characterize the protest movement(s) especially in a situation this hazy.
This comment focuses only on one aspect of the crisis, and that is U.S. and Western meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine with what I've (and many other commentators) have determined to be a not-so-covert attempt at isolating (and encircling) Russia on the one hand, and delivering Ukraine into the welcoming arms of the Neo-liberal (predatory) embraces of the World Bank and the IMF.
Now, I don't expect everybody to agree with that characterization, and that's fine--people can agree to disagree when it comes to such complicated geopolitical dynamics.
But be that as it may, I will find it hard to believe that at this point anybody could argue that the U.S. and Western partners did not play a role in the crisis, both covertly and overtly.
I've argued that the role they've been playing has been overtly antagonizing to Russia (regardless of the merits of such a stand), and that now we are seeing what should have been oh-so-clear to anybody with any basic knowledge of history.
Insofar as there were factions and leaders in Ukraine that may have felt emboldened (and perhaps encouraged with a little something something when it comes to "funding") to play along with the West's plans (of delivering Ukraine to the IMF), my only question now is: Are you so sure that your Neo-liberal friends in the West are going to really stand up for you now?
In other words, I know that there are situations where chickenhawks are always happy suggest military action, especially when the other side is a tiny little island in the Caribbean, or a third-rate country with a weak military. There is nothing easier for a bully to hit someone when they know their opponent can't hit back--hard.
But here's my question to chickenhawks (insofar as there may be any reading this): Are you now ready to stand by your "convictions" about helping spread "freedom and democracy" around the world and call for the U.S. or anybody else to go to war with Russia?
Please step forward and raise your hand and make yourself count as a true defender of freedom and democracy and state clearly that you are now calling for the U.S. (and Western partners) to engage in an all-out war against Russia.
Those who quickly jump in the bandwagon when it comes to wars of choice, interventions and invasions against countries like Grenada, Panama, and Iraq, would you be so kind as to share your opinion about whether you now call for the U.S. go declare war against Russia? If you do, then please pardon me for my assumption. For some reason I've always assume that chickenhawks are usually quick to demand military intervention against weak third-rate powers, but cower at the thought when it comes to countries with the capability of hitting back--hard. Because that's the nature of bullies.
Now, here's a (rhetorical) question for U.S. and Western leaders who have been engaged in funding "NGOs" in Ukraine with the stated purpose of spreading "freedom and democracy and self-determination": Are you now ready to help your friends?
UPDATE: MON MAR 03, 2014 AT 1:45 PM PST
Some commenters are saying that there is "zero evidence" of U.S. involvement in destabilization efforts in Ukraine. Here's additional reference material:
Boston Globe: US a full partner in Ukraine debacle
FROM THE moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.
~Snip~
Some policy makers in Washington have been congratulating each other for a successful American-aided regime change operation in Ukraine. Three factors converged to produce the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych. First was his own autocratic instinct and utter lack of political skill, which led him to think he could ignore protesters. Second was the brave determination of the protesters themselves. Third was intervention by the United States and other Western countries — often spearheaded by diplomats and quasi-covert operatives who have been working for years on “democracy promotion” projects in Ukraine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORBES:
7 Reasons Why You Should Be Pessimistic About Ukraine
by
Mark Adomanis
[ ] The IMF wants its pound of flesh
It is possible that a committed and generous response from the IMF would be able to overcome the sort of economic pressure that Russia is going to deploy. But the IMF’s statements so far all suggest that it is going to demand painful austerity measures in exchange for any aid. One can understand why the IMF is making such demands (Ukraine’s economy is inefficient and uncompetitive) but governments that undertake radically unpopular economic reforms don’t usually last very long. If the newly installed Ukrainian government becomes popularly associated with painful austerity then it’s not hard to imagine that government rapidly losing popularity. There’s a reason that no Ukrainian government has ever directly tackled the issue of natural gas subsidies: because natural gas subsidies are extremely popular among the Ukrainian public. While it is fair to say that Ukrainians generally want a more open and honest economy, there’s actually very little popular demand society for radical neoliberal reform. The region’s history strongly suggests that if neoliberal inform ends up being imposed anyway that there will be political hell to pay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
truth-out: Ukraine:
"Go West, Young Man" (or Dr. Strangelove's Revenge)
by Michael Hudson and Jeffrey Sommers
Having suffered a generation under Stalin and his successors, Ukrainians will now be able to compare that to the hand of IMF central planners. Who needs a military thrust when a new round of shock therapy and austerity will do the trick more deftly?
Yanukovych is the kind of kleptocrat that neoliberals promised would enrich the post-Soviet states, except he committed the unforgivable sin of refusing to implement an EU/US-counseled austerity program. The aim is to transfer public wealth into the hands of private individuals who will be steered by the "Invisible Hand" (that of the sponsors of today's color revolutions) to seek their gains by selling what they have taken to Western investors. Finance is the new mode of warfare, and we are seeing a grab for what military invasions in times past aimed at: land, natural resources and infrastructure monopolies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------