Tuesday, 11 March 2014

Russia has a case for intervention in Crimea, but is making a great mistake by doing so


I dislike very much Vladimir Putin and what he stands for, though he has done a great deal for Russia as well as much that is bad. As always Russia seems to need a strong man, an authoritarian. But though I am so sorry that Russia is intervening - still covertly so far - in Ukraine, it is very hard to frame reasons why they should not do so that distinguish this behaviour from that of the USA and the UK.

This article from Slate is hard to rebut. So is this scholarly argument in favour of Russia. How do we justify intervention in Libya and Kosovo and not Putin's actions? I dislike saying this, but it is so. 

My original legitimist philosophy that all revolutions are always wrong, which I feared was reactionary, looks more plausible day by day. Revolutions seem almost always to do very little good and very much harm. This is also Christian doctrine, though many people have forgotten it. Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

What is clear is that Mr. Putin, if he annexes Crimea, will thereby lose Ukraine, however disastrous the next Ukrainian government will be, and it will be. As will be the one after. Mr. Putin had enough levers with which to influence Ukraine without seizing part of the 

Mr. Putin is making a huge mistake, whether or not he is justified in what he is doing. By doing this he is losing Ukraine, I am pleased to say. The EU is ghastly, I agree, but it is a lot better than Russia and it is a lot better than where Ukraine is now, ruled by crooks and thugs. What is sad is that Eastern Europeans do not do anything to change the statism and social liberalism that the EU embodies or try to prevent mass migrations from the Third World.

No comments:

Post a Comment