On Putin and the Ukraine

The Washington Times has an editorial criticizing Obama on the Ukraine crisis:

[There have been] disasters in the past when presidents [have] left the door ajar to aggressors. When Dean Acheson, President Truman’s secretary of state, suggested that America was not much interested in protecting South Korea, the result was a long and bitter war. 

Leading from behind looks to adversaries and enemies like an invitation to take chances for a big payoff, as in Ukraine this week. Disaster inevitably follows. 

Ronald Reagan believed in “peace through strength, knowing that if America was strong enough, evil and ambitious men would not be tempted to test American resolve. 

Mr. Carter learned that hard lesson when it was almost too late. But he learned it. Mr. Obama works on a much steeper learning curve, but learn he will, too. 

The American people and those who rely on us for their very existence must know that we are there for them. Dithering and weakness lead to war that could have been avoided.

I guess this is a perfect opportunity to point out my paleoconservative bona-fides. I gag at sticking up for Obama on anything, but he's doing exactly what he should do here-- nothing.

We have no dog in this fight. Ukraine and Russia have issues that are a millennium old (the 9th --13th century Kievan Rus was a confederation of slavic tribes that gave rise to Russia-- and to the Ukraine-- as ethnic and cultural entities). Russia has slavered over the Crimea and warm water Black Sea ports since at least the 18th century. The Crimean War in the 1850's was in significant part about Russian access to the Black Sea. The eastern half of the Ukraine is ethnically and linguistically Russian,  as is the Crimea, and the Ukrainians have a lot of (understandable) resentment toward Russia (the Holodomor was a genocide of horrendous proportions). The Russians on the other hand resent the Ukrainians for their (perceived) widespread support for the Nazis during Barbarossa, which itself may be understood as the result of persistent Ukrainian resentment for Stalin's famine-as-policy atrocity. Between Russians and Ukrainians, it's complicated.

This is a complex crisis with very old dynamics, and we have no business whatsoever getting involved. The Baltic states and Morovia and Poland and Hungary might appropriately be a bit nervous, but that is a European issue, and none of our damn (American) business.

The editorial's reference to Acheson's speech in 1950 that may have helped trigger the Korean War is misguided. Indeed it is important to take a strong stand to defend a national interest-- if it is really a national interest-- but to take a strong stand to defend something we have no business defending is just asking for escalation and all manner of problems. We had good reason to defend South Korea, and should have said so in the run-up to 1950. We have no compelling national interest to defend Ukraine, and we should make that clear, which is exactly what Obama is doing.

Obama is a putz, but right now "putz" is just what we need. This is no place for 'lines in the sand'. The appropriate American response is to offer to facilitate a peaceful resolution and particularly a resolution that protects innocent civilians who, as always, stand to suffer if this becomes a war.

Conservatives who demand that we be "tough" with Russia on this matter are nuts. I am a conservative, but sometimes, especially on foreign affairs, conservatives are out of their minds.