The Ukraine crisis is very controversial and many news reports have been written on this. While there is much good information on this, there is also much misinformation, much of it promoted by the mainstream media.
So the libertarian, particularly the libertarian Christian, must have an answer with regards to how to solve the Ukraine crisis. The basis must be the principle of noninterventionism. Nations should not interfere with one another's affairs, not even with the motive of helping a destitute country. Peaceful solutions to problems can be found without the use of intervention, and the United States government should not meddle in the affairs of Ukraine.
Having said that, we need to understand certain things about the situation that will clarify some things.
US Involvement in Ukranian-Russian Affairs
To fully understand the crisis, one must look to see how the United States government has dealt with Ukraine and Russia before the crisis broke out.
Sheldon Richman argues that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Republicans and Democrats supported an aggressively anti-Russian outlook. Also, unlike promised, NATO did not disband but rather expanded its growth, and included Ukraine in the fold, along with the other former Soviet republics.
Also, $5 billion was invested in the Orange Revolution, as admitted by the neoconservative Victoria "F*** the EU" Nuland, which for a time brought pro-US politicians into the halls of power, and the US government is still running the Ukraine opposition, as Daniel McAdams reveals.
In 2004, Ian Traynor reported that "the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes."
This should explain some very important things: the US government does have its own interests in the situation, and they are not entirely noble.
The Current Situation
Now the current situation involves power struggles, riots, government corruption, and many problems. The nation is divided between the pro-European faction that wants to unite with Ukraine and those who do not.
Justin Raimondo aptly sums up the situation in this article:
Sheldon Richman argues that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Republicans and Democrats supported an aggressively anti-Russian outlook. Also, unlike promised, NATO did not disband but rather expanded its growth, and included Ukraine in the fold, along with the other former Soviet republics.
Also, $5 billion was invested in the Orange Revolution, as admitted by the neoconservative Victoria "F*** the EU" Nuland, which for a time brought pro-US politicians into the halls of power, and the US government is still running the Ukraine opposition, as Daniel McAdams reveals.
In 2004, Ian Traynor reported that "the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes."
This should explain some very important things: the US government does have its own interests in the situation, and they are not entirely noble.
The Current Situation
Now the current situation involves power struggles, riots, government corruption, and many problems. The nation is divided between the pro-European faction that wants to unite with Ukraine and those who do not.
Justin Raimondo aptly sums up the situation in this article:
First, a primer for those who have missed the rapidly escalating events of the past few days: mobs of protesters have taken over Kiev and the government of Viktor Yanukovich has been effectively overthrown. Impeached by the Parliament, andopposed now even by members of his Party of Regions, Yanukovich has fled the presidential palace for parts unknown (probably to his home town of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, near the Russian border). The police and all signs of organized authority have simply disappeared from the streets of the city: armed bands dressed inmedieval armor, carrying bats, crowbars, and sometimes guns roam the streets, dispensing victor’s "justice" to anyone perceived as a Yanukovich supporter.
It’s a coup d’etat, pure and simple, the violent overthrow of a duly elected official, and it is being hailed not only by that champion of "democracy," the United States government, but also by our clearly biased media, which is using this as a bludgeon to beat the hated Vladimir Putin – the latest in a series of overseas villains, second only to Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.
So the overthrow of Yanukovich wasn't so great after all, despite what some may have you think. The media's support for this is more or less an attempt to stick its finger in the eye of Russian leader Vladimir Putin (who I don't exactly view kindly). While it is true that there was suffering among the Ukranians due to the outright thieves in government, the whole Ukranian protests are more or less funded by the American government in an attempt to install the US-supported rulers instead. And to add insult to injury, many of the Ukraine protestors are less-than-savory folks, many of which include right-wing neo-Nazis, ultra-nationalists, and all the other bad things. Also, to note, the chief rabbi in Ukraine warned Jews to flee Ukraine.
And to the claims that Russian troops are moving into Ukraine, they are moving into Crimea, which should be left for the Crimeans. Justin Raimondo says, "The very idea of a Russian invasion of Ukraine is so counterproductive to Russia’s longterm interests that it is difficult to see Putin taking this course – and yet nothing can be ruled out at this point."
So what should the position be? Crimea has the right to self-determination and should be allowed to leave Ukraine, the United States government should leave Ukraine, and let a peaceful solution be brought about with intervention from the US government.
