Michael Collins

Is anybody listening?

President Barack Obama appears to be at some distance from reality. He's issuing statements about the Ukrainian situation as though he were the maximum leader of a vast empire that includes just about everywhere except Russia and China.

The scope of the president's edicts is remarkable considering the lack of public support, even interest, in using the influence of the United States in this conflict. In addition, the Obama threats and actions are riddled with inconsistencies.

When the elected president of the Ukraine was ousted by violent demonstrations, the administration endorsed the street coup by recognizing the new government. It didn't matter that the change came through violence. It didn't matter that the core leadership of the street protests consisted of neo Nazi organizations. The new leaders favored a closer relationship with the European Union and the United States.

Anticipating a response from Russia, Obama issued his first edict, a warning to President Vladimir Putin:

"Any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing. It would represent a profound interference in matters that must be determined by the Ukrainian people." President Barack Obama, February 28

Two days later, Russian troops took control of the Crimea, a part of the Ukraine with a Russian-speaking majority.

Obama threatened sanctions against Russia for actions in the Crimea. He also dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to the Ukraine's capitol, Kiev.

When the Crimean government announced a popular vote on the question of leaving the Ukraine to join Russia, another edict flowed forth from the would-be emperor:

"Any discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government of Ukraine. In 2014, we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders." President Obama, March 6

The legitimate government of the Ukraine is an unknown. The elected president fled the country leaving behind a substantial portion of the wealth he'd stolen while in office. The new leader, as it turns out, is the same person selected to take over by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine. The two made this clear in taped conversations released on February 4.

There was no election to endorse the ouster of the former president, a crook, or ratify the insertion of the new leader, a U.S. selected puppet.

Assistant Secretary Nuland had made her choice after vetoing a unity government: ""I don't think it's necessary ... I think Yats (Yatseniuk) is the guy ... " Why bother with an election. The U.S. had made its choice. Leaders of the violent protests dutifully named Yats the Ukraine's new prime minister on February 26.

In his most ambitious flight of fantasy and hypocrisy, the president warned the Crimea against holding a vote to choose between remaining as a part of the Ukraine or join Russia. In true imperial fashion, the emperor in his own mind is now opposing democratic elections.

The president is not alone in his fantasies of influence and power.

The Abbot and Costello team of Republican war hawks, Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain, are bitter that the president isn't doing more. The Greek chorus consisting of the Council of Foreign Relations, fellow travelers, and their media properties are also demanding more action from the president.

Obama objects to events that he and others created

Russia fears the expansion of NATO. Despite written and verbal assurances in 1990 by U.S. and German officials that this would not take place, every president since George H.W. Bush has sought to expand NATO. A Ukraine membership represents Russia's worst-case scenario for NATO expansion. The nation borders Russia and represents either a security buffer, given a neutral or pro Russian government, or a dangerous threat to Russian security if the Ukraine is firmly aligned with the West

The Ukrainian riots broke out when its president reneged on a deal for an alliance with the European Union, the initial step of that nation joining NATO.

The riots resulted from Western aid to anti-Russian Ukrainian political groups through NGOs plus Ukraine's history of corrupt governments (regardless of the ruling faction). Non Government Organizations (NGOs) are private foundations that receive much of their money from the U.S. government and some support from private foundations. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a key NGO. This page lists $3.5 million in ongoing funds to groups in the Ukraine sympathetic to Western interests. The Mott Foundation, Coca Cola Foundation, and the Omidiyar Network Fund account for another $5.0. This is just a fraction of the money spent to achieve regime change friendly to the EU and U.S.

The Russians, particularly President Putin, are keenly aware of U.S. and EU efforts to create a Ukrainian government aligned with the West and hostile to Russia. They are aware of the broken commitments by the U.S. and German officials to respect Russian security by not expanding NATO to Russia's border. They're also aware that the U.S. public could care less about foreign intrigue or the manufactured theatrics of violent demonstrations.

Moving to secure the Crimea and other parts of the majority Russian speaking sections of the Ukraine represents an act of protection by Russia brought on by the incessant and willful meddling led by the United States.

When will the (s)elected rulers of the United States think of citizens first rather than the income of the war profiteers in the defense industry?
When will they recognize that the country is broke, broken, and in need of repair and renewal? Do they even care? Of course not! They'll do just fine however this turns out.

END

(Image by Wikipedia)

Creative Commons 3.0