The past few years we have observed the struggle by Ukraine for their freedom. American leadership chooses not to intervene with military force on behalf of the Ukrainian people, but rather sees fit to condemn the actions of Russia with fruitless sanctions. In addition to this, we see American thinkers and policy experts encourage Ukraine to avoid struggling with Russia and to seek what peaceful measures they can obtain. And regarding such actions by these American leaders, I hold that, “They solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if they succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war: The cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both.” Common Sense[1].
Recently, Doug Bandow, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, and William Ruger, a Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and the President of the American Institute for Economic Research, spoke on the High Tension at Ukraine’s Border. Mr. Bandow suggested that Russia would not have become the aggressor if America would not have opened the door so broadly for NATO membership. He further encouraged the moderate voices in Ukraine to seek what semblance of freedom Russia would allow, even though it would mean “rough accommodations” for Ukrainians. With an echo, Mr. Ruger chimed-in to assure the listeners that Russia does not have a desire in compromising Western Europe, but in simply keeping border nations away from Western military influence. That a tear in our relationship with Ukraine would not cause America either economic harm or compromised safety; nor would America’s refusal to assist Ukraine result in damaged relations with our German or French allies. I am saddened, as I think back to America’s struggle for independence, and find it strange that such toryesque sentiments are coming from our free people. Mr. Bandow’s and Mr. Ruger’s attempt at a pragmatic solution pays no attention to the human soul; their plan may feed you and clothe you, but it would not set you free.
The Ukrainian people are at present vying for the freedom to operate under a constitutional government that is progressively being severed from its corrupt, Marxist past. Former President Bush admonished the Ukrainian people to do just this in August of 1991, encouraging them to strive for a free “system of government that derives its just power from the consent of the governed, that retains its legitimacy by controlling its appetite for power.” Has not Ukraine done just this by ousting through parliamentary procedures a pro-Russian president who is said to have syphoned billions from their treasury? Do they not hold a popular vote, and have they not recently elected an actor who is currently standing his ground against Russia and patriotically fighting for his County’s freedom?
What America must understand is that the Bear is finished hibernating, and its thirst for dominance won’t stop with Ukraine.
President Bush said four times in the referenced address to the Ukrainian people, that America supports their struggle for freedom. I dare say that we could have done more, and could still do more, for the Ukrainian people in their now face-to-face fight for freedom against Russian oppression. If, however, some Americans believe that we shouldn’t intervene with our military, as Mr. Bandow and Mr. Ruger hold, then the least such people could do is to limit their statements to that one point, and not patronize the Ukrainians by telling them that Russia won’t stay this way forever. Russia chose to invade Ukraine to ensure its own hold on world power – a power that should have been broken four decades ago and that certainly deserves no “buffer” between it and NATO. What America must understand is that the Bear is finished hibernating, and its thirst for dominance won’t stop with Ukraine. We will face Russia again, because their Marxist ideology understands no word for peace – what will the “tear” with Ukraine cost us at that point, gentlemen? Indeed, the outcome of this struggle over Ukraine will affect American security and its economy, as time will soon show.
Before I leave you with my perspective, I want to remind you of Mr. Reagan’s perspective of Russian aggression, and of his thoughts towards those who would downplay the same:
You know, I’ve always believed that old Screwtape reserved his best efforts for those of you in the church[2]. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride — the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.
Ronald Reagan
Perspective:
America will forever retain a sense of duty towards the peoples of this world who are struggling for freedom against oppressive regimes, for America’s people are from every corner of the world. We fled from places in the Orient, from India, from Africa, from Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, England, Central and South America, and we have even survived, at times, our own misguided leadership on these shores. Our very souls know of the struggle here today, and the expansion of Russian power over Ukraine should not be accepted. Let America stand with Ukraine, and let the world see her free.
james m. spillers
[1] Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis, No. 1, 1776.
[2] Understand that I believe this statement applies to the Republican and Independent Parties, as well as to the religious sects among us.
USA Perspectives 