PUTIN AND UKRAINE

      It was distressing and scary to see Russian military forces move into and take-over the Crimea in southern Ukraine. It is even more distressing and depressing to see American conservatives blaming our president for these dangerous events and showing admiration for Vladimir Putin, the man behind this aggression.

            Anyone who has read history will be aware that World War I was started with the same kind of occurrences as are happening now in Ukraine. Back then, the assassination of a Grand Duke, followed by a series of demands, confrontations, and clashes, led to greatest bloodletting the world had ever known. World War II was preceded by Hitler’s claims that he needed to invade neighboring countries in order to protect the German populations therein. Putin has made similar claims about the Crimea, and has hinted that he feels the same about other areas in nations surrounding Russia.

I believe that what happened before World Wars I and II could happen in Ukraine. If the Russian army were to move into eastern Ukraine, and the Ukrainian Army were to confront the Russian invaders, and if European nations were to come to the aid of Ukraine, and the United States was to fulfill its treaty obligations with NATO, we could be in a bloody world of trouble—all caused by the insecurities of Vladimir Putin. Contrary to the image he likes to project, I believe that Putin is a terribly insecure man.

            Let’s not forget that Putin is a former KGB officer. After the fall of the Soviet Union he was in charge of the Federal Security Service which was the successor to the KGB and which retained many of the old KGB thugs. He has said that the fall of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Putin has never denounced the police state that existed under Communism. The Soviet Union may have been powerful, but it existed on the basis of a harsh, ruthless, violent tyranny that denied its people most of the freedoms we experience in the United States and confronted the United States and Europe with brutal hostility. Putin may not want a return of Soviet Communism, but he would surely like to reestablish Russian homogeny over the states that were formerly part of the USSR.

Under Putin’s dictatorial rule the democratic freedoms that arose in Russia after the fall of Communism have gradually eroded, and opposition groups have come in for serious attacks. In 2006, Anna Politkovskaya, a reporter who was critical of the Putin regime, was murdered outside her Moscow apartment. In the U.K., Alexander Litvinenko, a noted Putin critic, was poisoned with a lethal dose of polonium 210. The chess master, Gary Kasparov, was thrown into jail for campaigning for justice and civil rights. Other opponents of Putin have incurred similar attacks.  The Russian media has seen its freedoms of speech and the press eliminated.

            Putin has made it clear that he desires to restore the influence and power of the Soviet Union. In 2008, when the President of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, sent troops into the rebellious Georgian republic of South Ossetia , Putin sent tank units of the Russian Army into Georgia and crushed the Georgian forces. Putin has succeeded in intimidating Russia’s former republics, and dissuaded them from becoming members of NATO.

            In July 2007, Putin suspended Russian observance of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). This treaty established limits on key categories of conventional military equipment in Europe and mandated the destruction of excess weaponry. It restricted Russian freedom to expand its military might.

            Perhaps those conservatives who seem to admire Putin so much should consider whether they want a return of the Soviet Union. The Russian Federation has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. Putin has enlarged the Russian armed forces. We could easily return to a Cold War status.

            It used to be a rule between the major political parties in America that whatever domestic disagreements we had, we came together as a nation on foreign policy. The reason for this was obvious. Internal disputes over foreign policy make a nation appear confused and weak. When dealing with other nations, especially potential enemies, we should speak with one voice. For some reason, conservatives have depicted President Obama’s efforts to bring-about peace in the world as weakness. They show admiration for a macho thug like Putin. They ignore the likelihood that the reason for Putin’s tough-guy stand, and for his international defiance and aggression, are insecurities about himself and his country.

            President Obama is obviously not a weak man. He is a decent man who has no need to prove his masculinity. He shows his deep strength and humanity by working for peace and understanding. I wish that his conservative critics had the courage to do the same.