{"id":187864,"date":"2015-10-02T02:39:33","date_gmt":"2015-10-02T02:39:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=187864"},"modified":"2015-10-02T02:39:33","modified_gmt":"2015-10-02T02:39:33","slug":"obama-v-putin-their-debate-on-crimea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/obama-v-putin-their-debate-on-crimea\/","title":{"rendered":"Obama v. Putin: Their Debate on Crimea"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Source of the \u2018New Cold War\u2019: The Basic Disagreement Between Obama and Putin<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic<\/span><\/a>–culture<\/span><\/a>.org<\/span><\/p>\n

INTRODUCTION<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The basic disagreement between U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the source of the economic sanctions against Russia, and \u2019the new cold war,\u2019 concerns the question of whether the process by which Crimea separated from Ukraine and joined Russia was, as Obama says, \u201caggression\u201d<\/span><\/a> by Russia, an illegal \u201cseizure\u201d of Crimea by Russia; or, on the other hand, as Putin says, a thoroughly legal and democratic act by the people of Crimea, to exercise their right of self-determination, via a referendum.<\/span><\/p>\n

Many of the points that will be referred-to, along the way here, are going to be opposite to the views that are widespread in the West; and, so, wherever that is the case, clicking onto the linked source will enable you easily to check what\u2019s being said, if it conflicts with what you \u2018know\u2019 or have previously been told. All of the sources linked-to here are either primary evidence such as videos of the actual events, or else articles which link through to similarly high-quality primary evidence. In \u201cpoliticized\u201d and other controversial matters like this, the quality of the evidence is especially important to making a rational determination as to where the truth actually is; and this (plus the heavy prevalence of propaganda surrounding this matter) is the reason for the extensive and high-quality documentation that\u2019s cited here. These links provide ready evidence regarding any allegation that might seem doubtful.<\/span><\/p>\n

The alternative to such extensive and high-quality documentation would be to offer here only statements that are either bland and\/or undocumented; and, regarding the present topic \u201cObama v. Putin,\u201d any such article on so controversial a matter would, frankly, be a waste for readers, hardly enlightening at all \u2013 just more \u2018confirmation\u2019 of what you already \u2018know,\u2019 or else not even a credible article. The subject here is worth the trouble to understand accurately<\/i>. (Or, if it\u2019s not, then you probably woudn\u2019t have read even this far.)<\/span><\/p>\n

OBAMA\u2019S SIDE<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In addition to charging Russia with \u201caggression\u201d regarding Crimea, Obama also accuses Russia of \u201caggression\u201d against Ukraine in Ukraine\u2019s former Donbass region (which is basically the dark purple area on this map<\/span><\/a>), such as by saying<\/span><\/a>, \u201cRussia\u2019s aggression in Ukraine makes clear that European security and the international rules and norms against territorial aggression cannot be taken for granted. In response, we have led an international effort to support the Ukrainian people as they choose their own future and develop their democracy.\u201d However, he has never cited the justification for his overthrowing<\/span><\/a> (look at that video evidence of it, but there\u2019s lots more) the democratically elected President of Ukraine in February 2014 (Obama\u2019s type<\/i> <\/span>of \u201cas they choose their own future and develop their democracy\u201d). The head of the \u201cprivate CIA\u201d firm Stratfor admits that this was actually \u201cthe most blatant coup in history.\u201d<\/span><\/a> (Like I said: there\u2019s lots more evidence of the coup.) Obama has never cited any justification for imposing in Ukraine instead a rabidly anti-Russian regime<\/span><\/a> next-door to Russia, replacing the then-existing and democratically elected<\/i> <\/span>Ukrainian government that had existed. He has always alleged that the source of the new cold war was Crimea\u2019s transfer to Russia, not the transfer of Ukraine to the U.S. (the coup, shown here being prepared<\/span><\/a>), which had immediately preceded, and precipitated, the breakaway of Crimea.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, did this decision by Obama, to overthrow Ukraine\u2019s President Viktor Yanukovych, really \u201cdevelop their democracy,\u201d as Obama phrased the matter? Or did it instead end<\/i> <\/span>that democracy, and cause some parts of Ukraine, which had voted overwhelmingly for the man whom Obama overthrew<\/span><\/a>, to separate themselves from Obama\u2019s<\/span><\/a> newly coup-imposed<\/span><\/a> government of Ukraine? Crimeans had voted over 75% for Yanukovych; Donbass had voted over 90% for Yanukovych.<\/span><\/a> With the coup, Ukraine\u2019s new national government was anything but a \u2018democracy\u2019 for them<\/i>. It was instead their government\u2019s being stolen by the United States. Obama\u2019s rhetoric, alleging his desire to help \u201cdevelop their democracy,\u201d is a blatant lie, which is something that\u2019s actually routine for him<\/span><\/a>. (Please click onto that link there for the evidence on the matter, if you disagree that he routinely lies.) To say that he rampantly lies is just a statement of fact, not one of opinion. Obama is remarkably similar to George W. Bush<\/span><\/a> \u2013 though far more articulate, and though he uses rhetoric that appeals to a broader global audience. <\/span><\/p>\n

Just because something (such as what was just documented here) is not generally reported in the press doesn\u2019t necessarily mean it\u2019s not true. The meaning of that might instead be: the American press, on all sides of it, lies in the same direction about certain things on which all sides of the aristocracy<\/i> <\/span>(since the same aristocracy controls both<\/i> <\/span>the government and<\/i> <\/span>the \u2018news\u2019 media) agree, such as, itself, the lie<\/span><\/a> that America is a democracy, not<\/i> <\/span>an aristocracy. When the national press and the national government are controlled by the same group, it\u2019s no democracy. The nation\u2019s aristocracy naturally don\u2019t want the public to recognize that their government is, in fact, not a democracy<\/span><\/a>. Not a republic (\u201crepublic\u201d being another name for the system of government in any large democratic nation). It represents instead only a narrow group. It\u2019s a dictatorship, not a democracy. For example: see this<\/span><\/a> and this<\/span><\/a>. Aristocrats rule here, behind the scenes. They don\u2019t want the public to see it; so, the things that I\u2019ve just linked to regarding Russia and Crimea, they have refused to report, and instead demonize Russia and its leader Putin<\/span><\/a>. The public won\u2019t favor this new cold war if they know it\u2019s based instead upon their aristocracy\u2019s grasp for expanding their own empire<\/span><\/a>, at the public\u2019s expense (in money for the military, if nothing else, to use the nation\u2019s armed forces as their personal group\u2019s armed international gang).<\/span><\/p>\n

But, just because Obama has been lying about the Crimean situation doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that the transfer of Crimea to Russia was in accord with international law. Was it? Obama says it wasn\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n

Crimea is the specific issue on which Obama imposed sanctions against Russia, saying that it was \u201cillegal.\u201d<\/span><\/a> He has never even considered, publicly, that Crimea\u2019s breakaway from Ukraine was actually sparked by that coup<\/span><\/a> \u2013 his coup<\/span><\/a>. Nor has the Western press discussed any of these things \u2013 the actual cause of that breakaway, by Crimea, from Ukraine. (It was, in fact, sparked directly by Obama\u2019s thugs butchering<\/span><\/a> busloads of Crimeans who were escaping from Obama\u2019s Kiev coup<\/span><\/a>. And, here is a quick summary<\/span><\/a> I recently did of that butchery.) However, Obama insists that Crimea must be restored to the Ukrainian government, in order for the sanctions against Russia to end<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is like George W. Bush\u2019s \u201cSaddam\u2019s WMD\u201d excuse for \u201cregime change,\u201d except that Obama\u2019s \u201cregime change\u201d is occurring in Libya (Gaddafi), Syria (Assad), Ukraine (Yanukovych), and other countries that have supported Russia \u2013 all aimed ultimately to replace Putin himself. Obama paints Putin as being a modern version of Stalin<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Only Obama\u2019s side has been presented in the West \u2013 his Administration\u2019s lies \u2013 and the economic sanctions were imposed against Russia on that false basis, and without challenge from the Western press. But is his legal<\/i> <\/span>case valid? If the legal<\/i> <\/span>case is valid, even though the history of the conflict has been misrepresented, then international law itself would need to be changed. The results of Obama\u2019s lies would then be essentially permanent. (Changing international law would take too long, if it happens at all.) But those results affect the entire world\u2019s future. We\u2019re heading toward a possible nuclear war. So, the legal issue needs also to be accurately understood, in order to see whether there\u2019s any case at all to be made for continuing on this course (toward a nuclear war).<\/span><\/p>\n

These economic sanctions constitute Obama\u2019s punishment of Russia for that breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine; this is the foundation of the \u201cnew cold war,\u201d entailing not just the anti-Russia sanctions but all of the military exercises on both sides with tit-for-tat training operations by each side\u2019s military regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons in the event that one side or the other decides to be the first one to pull the nuclear plug<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Where, then, does the legal case stand?<\/span><\/p>\n

Obama has not publicly provided any legal analysis in order to back-up his view that the breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine was illegal, but Andrei Illarionov of the libertarian billionaire Koch brothers\u2019 Cato Institute has already done that for him, in Illarionov\u2019s \u2013 which thus-far is the only<\/i> \u2013 coherent statement regarding why Obama\u2019s view, the West\u2019s view, on this, is legally correct, and why Putin\u2019s view on it is legally wrong.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Illarionov’s 10 November 2014 article,\u00a0\u201cAnnexation of Crimea Is a Litmus Test for Russian Opposition,\u201d<\/span><\/a>\u00a0said that indeed the first among \u201cthe crimes that\u00a0have been committed or\u00a0are being committed by the Kremlin \u2013 stealing\u00a0Crimea\u201d can be\u00a0rectified only by terminating Russia as we know it, totally rejecting<\/i> <\/span>\u201cRussia\u2019s aggression in\u00a0Crimea,\u201d\u00a0which, to him, means replacement of the current Russian government by \u201ca\u00a0free democratic state with the rule of law\u201d: i.e., overthrowing it,\u00a0in order to establish\u00a0that very thing, \u201ca free democratic state\u00a0with the rule of law.\u201d (His concept of \u201cdemocracy\u201d is, however, as you will see here, the opposite of the usual meaning of that term.) His case that today\u2019s Russia has fundamentally violated \u201cthe rule of law\u201d in the Crimean instance, and so needs not only sanctions, but much more severe treatment, will now be presented and discussed here: <\/span><\/p>\n

He\u00a0said that, \u201cThe issue of Crimea\u2019s\u00a0jurisdiction is within the competence\u00a0of only one subject of\u00a0international law \u2013 the owner of that territory,\u00a0namely Ukraine.\u00a0Only this subject, and no one else, has necessary legal\u00a0rights\u00a0to change this territory\u2019s jurisdiction.\u201d And, since Ukraine did\u00a0not\u00a0sell<\/i> Crimea to Russia, Russia \u201cstole\u201d it from Ukraine. That\u2019s his argument.<\/span><\/p>\n

He\u00a0sees the issue of Crimea as being not an issue of people, but\u00a0of land:\u00a0the land-area of Crimea, which Russia \u201cstole\u201d from\u00a0Ukraine \u2013 that Russia\u00a0stole the land and everything in it, and\u00a0under it, and on it,\u00a0including its residents.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Illarionov, Crimea\u2019s\u00a0residents are simply human\u00a0property there. They belong to Ukraine, no\u00a0matter what they\u00a0think, because they reside on Ukraine\u2019s land<\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n

Illarionov\u2019s article doesn\u2019t even so much as\u00a0discuss\u00a0whether the 16 March 2014 popular vote of Crimeans, in which\u00a097% voted to rejoin Russia (note: the Soviet Union’s dictator Khrushchev had\u00a0donated Crimea from\u00a0Russia, to Ukraine, in 1954, without even asking\u00a0anyone in Crimea their\u00a0opinion of the matter \u2013 Crimea had been part of Russia for hundreds of years prior to 1954) \u2013 whether this vote reflected\u00a0accurately the public sentiment among\u00a0Crimeans. It actually\u00a0did reflect that<\/span><\/a> (which is why Obama can\u2019t argue on that basis \u2013 self-determination), but\u00a0this question is simply ignored by Illarionov. <\/span><\/p>\n

However, he goes further, to condemn: \u201cbashful populism hiding behind unlimited (non-liberal) democracy. \u2018Whatever the majority desires is right.\u2019 People who hold these beliefs might admit that all possible laws and norms have been violated, that a crime has been committed, and even condemn the crime; but if the majority wants the crime\u2019s results to be preserved, they will not do anything to stop it, protect the victim, return what was stolen, [nor] punish the criminal. This is the principle of recognizing the fait accompli resulting from the crime, the principle of subordinating one\u2019s actions to the mob\u2019s instincts.\u201d In other words: he condemns \u201cunlimited democracy\u201d and \u201cthe mob.\u201d (Obama himself has used similar imagery in order to state privately his support of America\u2019s aristocratic crooks, when he told Wall Street\u2019s CEOs<\/span><\/a> who had administered and profited from the MBS and other frauds that had crashed the world\u2019s economy, these men who were assembled together inside the White House, early in his Administration: \u201cMy administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks [the \u2018mob\u2019] \u2026 I\u2019m protecting you. \u2026 I\u2019m going to sheild you from public and congressional anger.\u201d And he did<\/span><\/a>.) And, by \u201cnon-liberal,\u201d Illarionov is using the term for libertarianism that\u2019s used outside the United States: \u201cliberal.\u201d He favors only<\/i> <\/span>\u201cliberal\u201d \u201cdemocracy,\u201d which he thinks is a \u201climited\u201d form of \u201cdemocracy.\u201d Whoever rules there, it\u2019s certainly not \u201cthe mob,\u201d his term for the public<\/i>. (It\u2019s Obama\u2019s \u201cpitchforks.\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, Illarionov goes on to say:\u00a0\u201cThe fact\u00a0that most of the peninsula\u2019s population are ethnic\u00a0Russians does not\u00a0matter either.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

In other words: the residents\u00a0of Crimea should be\u00a0entirely ignored<\/i>, he says. Not only the residents\u2019 opinions,\u00a0but the possible reasons for\u00a0those opinions, have nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of Crimea’s transfer, he says. Those people live on Ukraine\u2019s land, and so are Ukraine\u2019s property \u2013 and Russia stole this property, from Ukraine. The people there are only property.<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s the only coherent legal theory upon which Obama\u2019s case against the transfer of Crimea back to Russia makes sense.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

(This argument of Illarionov would apply equally to Donbass \u2013 if valid at all \u2013 though Putin has refused to accept the urgings of the residents there that they too be allowed to join Russia<\/span><\/a>. Obama and Ukraine say he\u2019s trying to grab that region, but Putin only wants the people there to be able to protect themselves from the government that\u2019s trying to kill them<\/span><\/a>, and he sends them multi-truckloads of foods and medicines so that they can survive. Those people are therefore establishing their own government, and the question now is whether that government will become accepted as constituting an \u201coblast\u201d or district within a federal Ukraine. Ukraine so far has rejected that, federalism. But if Ukraine accepts, then the issues will arise of what, if any, property-rights will be restored to Ukraine, in Donbass, by the residents there, and of how those residents can be compensated for the Ukrainian government\u2019s bombing<\/span><\/a> of them<\/span><\/a> \u2013 including destruction of their houses and apartments and businesses.)<\/span><\/p>\n

(All Ukrainians except the U.S.-backing oligarchs have also been suffering enormously from America\u2019s takeover of Ukraine. The pro-Western Razumkov Center\u2019s periodic polling of Ukrainians<\/span><\/a> finds that the latest percentage of them who think Ukraine is going \u201cin a right direction\u201d is 14.3%; the highest score in the past 10 years was 41.3%, in June 2010, right after the man whom Obama overthrew in 2014, Viktor Yanukovych, was elected President in 2010. The second-highest such score was 26.1%, in December 2013, which was their first poll taken after Yanukovych had turned down the EU\u2019s offer, and was when the U.S.-planned coup and its \u201cMaidan\u201d demonstrations were already under way<\/span><\/a>. This is the actual result of Obama\u2019s \u2018democracy.\u2019)<\/span><\/p>\n

Here<\/a><\/span> is how Obama himself phrased his case, to the extent that he has done so at all:<\/span><\/p>\n

Since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine \u2013 not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine \u2013 since that time, this improvisation that he\u2019s been doing has getting \u2013 has gotten him deeper and deeper into a situation that is a violation of international law, that violates the integrity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, has isolated Russia diplomatically, has made Europe wary of doing business with Russia, has allowed the imposition of sanctions that are crippling Russia\u2019s economy at a time when their oil revenues are dropping. There\u2019s no formula in which this ends up being good for Russia. The annexation of Crimea is a cost, not a benefit, to Russia. The days in which conquest of land somehow was a formula for great nation status is over.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

He made this statement on 1 February 2015, only a few months after the 18 September 2014 Scottish referendum on independence<\/span><\/a> had been held, in which not only Britain but most of the world accepted without question the right of the people in a district of a nation to self-determination; but, he didn\u2019t even mention that referendum, and his interviewer, CNN\u2019s Fareed Zakaria, failed to ask him about it. (It\u2019s like the U.S. press had failed to challenge George W. Bush\u2019s allegations about \u201cSaddam\u2019s WMD,\u201d etc.<\/span><\/a>) <\/span><\/p>\n

Similarly, Obama said<\/span><\/a> on 3 September 2014 (with links added here by me):<\/span><\/p>\n

It is a\u00a0<\/i>brazen\u00a0assault on the territorial integrity of Ukraine \u2013 a sovereign and\u00a0independent European nation.<\/i><\/span><\/a>\u00a0It challenges that most basic of\u00a0principles of our international system \u2013\u00a0<\/i>that borders cannot be redrawn at the barrel of a gun;<\/i><\/span><\/a>\u00a0that nations\u00a0<\/i>have the right to determine their\u00a0own future.<\/i><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

By \u201ca sovereign and independent nation,\u201d he was referring to the \u201cnation\u201d Ukraine possessing a right to impose whatever type of government it wishes in any region of it that it wishes \u2013 and not at all about the rights of the people in Crimea<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

At the very start of his sanctions against Russia, Obama said this<\/span><\/a>, on 6 March 2014, as constituting his legal case (and the AP subsequently posted the video<\/span><\/a> of him saying it):<\/span><\/p>\n

This morning I signed an executive order that authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, or for stealing the assets of the Ukrainian people. \u2026 And that includes standing up for the principle of state sovereignty. The proposed referendum on the future of Crimea would violate the Ukrainian constitution and violate international law. 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.\u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cStealing the assets of the Ukrainian people\u201d is short-form for Illarionov\u2019s argument, but doesn\u2019t mention what those \u201cassets\u201d consist of. Illarionov honed in on the land; he filled in that detail, which would have seemed too ugly to too many people if the President himself were to have stated it publicly. Few in the public would agree with Obama\u2019s view that property takes precedence over people, so Obama ignored this detail. He didn\u2019t make clear that he was treating \u201cthe legitimate government of Ukraine\u201d (which he had actually just installed<\/span><\/a>) as if<\/i> <\/span>the people of Crimea were that government\u2019s property, to rule as they wish. Obama\u2019s real mental world is hereditary kings and their subjects \u2013 not<\/i> <\/span>actually elected heads-of-state and their citizenry, whom no one<\/i> <\/span>owns. It\u2019s an imperial world, in Obama\u2019s mind; but he\u2019s smart enough not to say it publicly. He even hypocritically pontificates: \u201cIn 2014, we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.\u201d But what about \u201cover the heads of democratic voters\u201d?<\/i> <\/span>To him, voters in a foreign country don\u2019t even count, so he refers instead to the \u201cleaders\u201d as the ones who possess rights in a foreign country, to decide yea or nay for their \u2013 subjects, not<\/i> <\/span>citizens. And that\u2019s the point here: Obama cares only about \u201cleaders,\u201d not about such mere \u201cpitchforks\u201d (the citizenry). He rejects the fundamental principle of revolution: that the thing separating it from being<\/i> <\/span>a coup (regressive instead of progressive) is that it must be bottom-up, not top-down (not \u201ca coup,<\/i>\u201d but instead a type of democratic expression, an authentic representation of the public\u2019s sentiment). He\u2019s in the business of squashing revolutions (the real thing), and of imposing coups (the fake version). The aristocracy that placed Obama into the White House want only to control the land, and that\u2019s what he is interested in (for examples: oil, gas, minerals, and strategic positions for gas-pipelines etc.). The people can just drop dead, for all he cares, if he\u2019s not in fact (as in Ukraine) sending in trainers and troops to help to kill or otherwise get rid of them. (Refugees here \u2013 anybody want to take them?<\/span><\/a> Oh, Russia<\/span><\/a>?) And, like Obama\u2019s competitor in 2012, Mitt Romney said, Russia \u201cis without question our number one geopolitical foe,\u201d<\/span><\/a> so, the objective to conquer Russia is clearly bipartisan; the only difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama wasn\u2019t so stupid as to assert a thing like that in public during the general-election phase of a Presidential campaign.<\/span><\/p>\n

Internationally, too, Obama was hardly alone in his stance favoring property rights over human rights; he actually had the backing of most European leaders. For example, in a 9 February 2015 joint press conference with President Obama, Germany\u2019s Chancellor Angela Merkel said<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

One particular priority was given to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia this morning. We stand up for the same principles of inviolability of territorial integrity. For somebody who comes from Europe, I can only say if we give up this principle of territorial integrity of countries, then we will not be able to maintain the peaceful order of Europe that we\u2019ve been able to achieve. This is not just any old point, it\u2019s an essential, a crucial point, and we have to stand by it. And Russia has violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine in two respects: in Crimea, and also in <\/i>[Donbass, which consists of] Donetsk and Luhansk. So we are called upon now to come up with solutions, but not in the sense of a mediator, but we also stand up for the interests of the European peaceful order.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

She, too, was implicitly denying the democratic right of the Scots in UK, and of Catalans<\/span><\/a> and others in Spain, etc., to self-determination<\/span><\/a> \u2013 to separate their region into a new and democratic country, if they have come to find terminally unacceptable the country of which they have been and are a part. She, too, was starting from the ideological position that had become internationally popular under Reagan and Thatcher: the view that property rights take precedence over<\/i> <\/span>human rights (rather than, as before, being subordinate to<\/i> <\/span>human rights).<\/span><\/p>\n

PUTIN\u2019S SIDE<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

So: here, then, is Putin\u2019s case on the matter, in an interview at<\/span><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=BdlXqyZHB9k<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

English: Exclusive ARD interview with Russian President Putin<\/b> | G\u00c3\u00bcnther Jauch | ARD. 17.Nov.2014 [Jauch of ARD \u2013 German public television \u2013 interviews Putin regarding Crimea]<\/span><\/p>\n

[10:55] JAUCH: For the West, this was a clear breach of international law. PUTIN: What\u2019s the question? JAUCH: The question is, did you underestimate the reaction of the West? PUTIN: We find this reaction absolutely disproportionate. \u2026 When we\u2019re confronted with the accusations that Russia has violated international law, I can hardly feel anything but astonishment. What is international law? First and foremost, it\u2019s the charter of the United Nations. \u2026 A vivid and fresh precedent was set in Kosovo. JAUCH: You mean the judgment of the International Criminal Court, with respect to Kosovo <\/i>[and here is the link to that<\/span><\/a>], which said that Kosovo had the right to self-determination, and that the people of Kosovo could vote on whether they wanted to have their own state or not? PUTIN: Exactly so, but there\u2019s more to it than that. The most important thing mentioned there was that in terms of self-determination, people populating a certain area are not obliged to ask the opinion of the central authorities of the state where they are resident. There\u2019s no need to have permission from the central governmental authorities, in order to take the necessary steps to self-determination. This is the most crucial point, and nothing that transpired in Crimea was any different from that which happened in Kosovo. I am deeply convinced that Russia has not violated any international laws. I am very open about this. It\u2019s a fact, and we\u2019ve never concealed it. \u2026 Besides, what is democracy? You and I know very well, what does demos mean, it means people. Democracy means the rule by the people. In our case, it\u2019s the people\u2019s right to be independent.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding Putin\u2019s allegation, in the same interview, that the evidence is clear that the Crimean population were \u201cmind-blowing\u201d in their support of joining Russia, that evidence is so conclusive that Washington can\u2019t challenge it, and instead avoids even referring to it; but, here it is<\/span><\/a>. Just click onto the links there, and the links in those articles, and you\u2019ll see the evidence itself: the results of the polls that were taken in Crimea, even by Western polling organizations. Obama\u2019s pretense to being a supporter of democracy is, in a sense, even worse than Hitler\u2019s supporting \u201cThe Big Lie\u201d technique, because Hitler at least acknowledged<\/i> <\/span>that he despised democracy (which is what Obama, but only in private, contemptuously called \u201cthe pitchforks\u201d<\/span><\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

(Please note that, though the Donbass case can\u2019t even be alleged to constitute any attempt by Russia to seize that former region of Ukraine<\/span><\/a>; Putin\u2019s argument, and the ICC\u2019s decision, would apply also in Donbass: self-determination. The only<\/i> <\/span>type of case where it would not<\/i> <\/span>apply would be one like the U.S. Southern Confederacy in 1860: the breaking-away of a region in order to enable slavery to exist under the law \u2013 the type of separatism that\u2019s intended to allow something so blatantly vile that the laws virtually everywhere do not allow it. The ICC\u2019s ruling does not enable any separatism which violates basic human rights. It does not allow, for another example, a separatism which would enable extermination of a people. Nor would it allow a separatism which would legalize husbands raping their wives. The ICC\u2019s ruling instead enforces<\/i> <\/span>basic human rights. That\u2019s what it was\/is all about.)<\/span><\/p>\n

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE TWO SIDES<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Whereas Obama\u2019s case (though it\u2019s unstated, only implicit) presumes that this is essentally a dispute about property, and enforcing property-rights, Putin\u2019s case presumes the exact contrary: that this is fundamentally a dispute about people, and human rights (versus property, and property-rights). Putin is saying simply that the people who reside in Crimea should determine the government in Crimea, and that owners of the land there (whatever and whomever those owners might happen to be) should not. That constitutes a fundamental ideological dispute between them. Instead of a dispute between communism versus democracy, this \u201cnew cold war\u201d is thus a dispute between libertarianism versus democracy, where Obama takes the libertarian (or in Europe, the \u201cliberal\u201d) position; and Putin takes the democratic position. Instead of America\u2019s being on the side of democracy this time around, Russia now is for, and America now is against, democracy (because, among other reasons, democracy in Crimea would inevitably defeat<\/span><\/a> Obama\u2019s aim here \u2013 his aim being to coerce the Crimeans to accept Ukraine as being their government, or else die). <\/span><\/p>\n

For further discussion of the property-focused ideology of libertarianism, one might read the writings of Hans-Hermann Hoppe<\/span><\/a>, who has presented the most thorough defense of libertarianism. (But similarly, market-absolutist economists, or \u201cneo-liberal\u201d economists, take this extremist position.) He defines libertarianism as basing all human rights on the right to property. On page 200 of his<\/span>\u00a0<\/i>Democracy\u2013The God That Failed<\/i><\/span><\/a><\/span>, he says, \u201cthe only social order that is just is a system of private property anarchy,\u201d meaning, to him, 100% private property, no government at all \u2013 no elections, or at least no elections in any other than the corporate sense, in which the number of shares (politically, that would be the number of dollars in a person\u2019s net worth) determines the number of votes (the individual\u2019s political power). He repudiates<\/i> <\/span>one-person-one-vote politics. That\u2019s \u201cThe God That Failed.\u201d Since that\u2019s too extreme a position for any politician to support publicly, America\u2019s most influential libertarian political operative, Grover Norquist, has softened it: \u201cI don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.\u201d<\/span><\/a> That \u201csize\u201d would include only the police and the military \u2013 not quite as extreme as the libertarian purists. Norquist was a friend and prot\u00c3\u00a9g\u00c3\u00a9e of Ronald Reagan. <\/span><\/p>\n

Before the proud and self-proclaimed conservative Reagan became President, the Kochs\u2019 Reason<\/i> <\/span>magazine had interviewed the then-Governor Reagan in their July 1975 issue, headlining \u201cInside Ronald Reagan\u201d<\/span><\/a>; and he said: \u201cI believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. … The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized [governmental \u2014 he wasn\u2019t talking about corporate] authority or more individual freedom [for property], and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.\u201d Hoppe wasn\u2019t saying anything new. But he was being bolder, less \u201cpolitic\u201d or diplomatic, about it, than Reagan or other politicians.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ever since Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, that view has been the dominant direction of thinking in the West (protect property but nothing else), but Putin is standing firmly against it; Putin re-asserts the pre-Reagan-era democratic capitalist ideology \u2013 democratic capitalism (with one-person-one-vote instead of one-dollar-one-vote) \u2013 and Putin claims that the International Criminal Court (which was established on 17 July 1998 by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court<\/span><\/a>, and about which wikipedia notes<\/span><\/a> \u201cThe seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.[10]\u201d; and America\u2019s rejecting it was a perfectly libertarian thing to do) produced the definitive (and only) legal precedent regarding Crimea. This decision made clear the supremacy of human rights over property rights. Concerning the Rome Statute itself, Russia signed the Statute on 13 September 2000<\/span><\/a>, shortly after Putin came to power. By contrast, that Court has been and is repudiated by both George W. Bush (the invader of Iraq etc.) and Barack Obama (the invader of Libya and Syria, and the coup-perpetrator or coup-champion in Ukraine<\/span><\/a>, Honduras<\/span><\/a>, Venezuela, Ecuador, etc.). <\/span><\/p>\n

Actually, U.S. President Bill Clinton did sign the Statute, as he was leaving office (and just months after Putin had signed it), but then the U.S. immediately withdrew. Footnote 10 on the document itself<\/span><\/a> states: \u201c10.In a communication received on 6 May 2002, the Government of the United States of America informed the Secretary-General of the following: \u2018This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary\u2019s status lists relating to this treaty.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Bush had almost certainly decided by that time to invade Iraq, which might be subject to prosecution by this Court; so, he withdrew the U.S. from it, in order to protect himself; and Obama has continued that immunity \u2013 both for Bush and for himself.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hoppe\u2019s ideology is much closer to that of Bush and Obama than it is to that of Putin. However, Hoppe is more honest about it than is any politician. (And he is much<\/i> <\/span>more honest about it than is Obama.) (Obama even had his Solicitor General argue to the U.S. Supreme Court<\/span><\/a> that lying in politics is a constitutional right in the United States that no state government may restrict or limit. Aristocrats can preserve their position in no other way than via lies. Obama is an expert liar, which helped him gain the financial backing from many of America\u2019s aristocrats.) <\/span><\/p>\n

An article by Hoppe at the libertarian website lewrockwell.com on 17 November 2000 was headlined \u201cDown With Democracy\u201d<\/span><\/a> and opened by defending the current distribution of wealth (property), as follows: \u201cImagine a world government, democratically elected according to the principle of one-man-one-vote on a worldwide scale. What would the probable outcome of an election be? Most likely, we would get a Chinese-Indian coalition government. And what would this government most likely decide to do in order to satisfy its supporters and be reelected? The government would probably find that the so-called Western world had far too much wealth and the rest of the world, in particular China and India, had far too little, and hence, that a systematic wealth and income redistribution would be called for.\u201d He condemned that. To him, the distribution of wealth is not a problem at all: the world\u2019s richest 80 people own as much as the world\u2019s bottom 50%, and<\/span><\/a> the world\u2019s richest 0.7% (35 million people) own $115.9 trillion, while the poorest 99.3% (4,665 million people) own $147.3 trillion; but, to libertarians, that\u2019s no problem at all. The U.S. itself has one of the most extremely unequal wealth-distributions of all countries. But, Hoppe even invited Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn \u2013 the world\u2019s leading proponent of returning to royalty, rule by hereditary monarchs, replacing all democracy \u2013 to write the third chapter in a book Hoppe edited,\u00a0The Myth of National Defense<\/i><\/span><\/a>. The closest that Obama has come to acknowledging his libertarianism publicly was when he said that inequality was a problem, but only inequality of economic opportunity is \u2013 not<\/i> <\/span>inequality of wealth.<\/span><\/p>\n

If President Obama were sincere about his verbal opposition to increasing economic inequality, he wouldn\u2019t deceive people by saying that, as The New York Times<\/i> summarized his propaganda in a headline on 3 February 2014,\u00a0“In Talk of Economy, Obama Turns to\u00a0\u2018Opportunity\u2019 Over \u2018Inequality\u2019.\u201d<\/span><\/a>\u00a0He would instead acknowledge that equality of opportunity cannot increase while inequality of incomes is increasing (as has been the case under his Presidency<\/span><\/a>), because opportunity depends very largely upon income: the bigger a person\u2019s income is, the more economic opportunities that person tends to have. Instead of acknowledging this basic crucial economic fact, Obama, and economists, hide it, and promote \u201cequality of opportunity\u201d as if that would cause more equality of wealth, instead of result from it. Property is more important to them than people are, but they want to hide the beliefs that are actually driving their actions. When a nation\u2019s leader has this belief, killing people to get their land can become policy<\/span><\/a>. Whereas in Crimea, Russian protection has prevented that from happening, the people in Donbass, whose request to join Russia was declined<\/span><\/a>, have suffered such slaughter and massive evacuations of refugees, most of them now living in Russia<\/span><\/a>. Obama\u2019s insistence upon subjecting the residents of Crimea to a similar fate is his intransigent requirement upon Russia, in order for him to halt economic sanctions. Obama continues to view the Crimean case as constituting a land-theft.<\/span><\/p>\n

And yet, when Obama speaks to a global audience, as he did recently on 28 September 2015 at the United Nations<\/span><\/a>, that public rhetoric affirms precisely the things that his actual policies are denying. He said, for example, \u201cI believe that in today\u2019s world, the measure of strength is no longer defined by the control of territory. Lasting prosperity does not come solely from the ability to access and extract raw materials. The strength of nations depends on the success of their people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The lying permeates not only all of the Republican Party, but also the very top, the national, level of the Democratic Party<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

This ideology also drives the international policies that have placed the Greek public on the hook for the hundreds of billions of dollars that local and foreign aristocrats took out of the Greek economy and which are now being demanded by the Greek government\u2019s bondholders to be paid back to them on those bum loans to the Greek government \u2013 basically they\u2019re demanding to be retroactively guaranteed to be paid, by the Greek citizenry (who benefited little if at all from those loans). As the great economist Michael Hudson put the matter in an article 28 September 2015<\/span><\/a>, \u201cBondholders \u2026 have managed to sell the idea that sovereign nations as well as individuals have a moral obligation to pay debts, even to act on behalf of creditors instead of their domestic populations.\u201d The biggest part of the problem is that most of those loans to the government just got skimmed off and sent abroad. Part of the latest \u201cbail out\u201d of \u2018Greece\u2019 (actually of the aristocracy) is to be paid via privatization of practically all of the Greek government\u2019s assets \u2013 auctioning them off to pay those bondholders<\/span><\/a>. But even that won\u2019t fully cover those debts; the rest will be paid to the bondholders by other taxpayers in the Eurozone<\/span><\/a>. The Greek public will then be left paying exorbitantly high taxes, while receiving virtually no government services. (Other Eurozone taxpayers will simply have higher taxes to pay.) That\u2019s libertarianism; that\u2019s microeconomic theory as political Scripture. That\u2019s political theory in which the distribution of wealth is ignored. Truth has nothing to do with it. All that matters is the dollars, not the people.<\/span><\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin, for his part, has absorbed too much of Western economics for him to be entirely freed from the idea that a person\u2019s worth is his net worth. He\u2019s by no means a progressive, but he does reject outright fascism \u2013 he\u2019s no libertarian<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Back again to the specific case of Crimea: Some efforts have been made to provide a legal case against<\/i> <\/span>Crimea\u2019s return to Russia, such as here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a>, but no one has thus far been able to cite any legal precedents in support of that view. International law has not yet succumbed to the libertarian position, but Obama and most leaders in Europe and Asia are pressing hard for that to happen, such as via Obama\u2019s proposed international treaties: TTIP, TPP, and TISA<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

In any event, the dispute over Crimea is part of a much larger debate regarding libertarianism versus democracy. (I am now trying to find a trade-publisher for my new book Replacing a False Economic Theory<\/i>, which goes into detail documenting this understanding of libertarianism, or \u201cneo-liberalism,\u201d as the modern extension from fascism. The history of libertarianism is presented there, and libertarianism is shown to be the political theory that\u2019s based upon microeconomic theory \u2013 a false theory, for which an empirically true theory is proposed to replace it. Also, the reason why economics has settled upon that now blatantly<\/i> <\/span>false theory is explained. Any publisher who might be interested may reach me at the.eric.zuesse at gmail.com; however, obviously, no aristocracy will support publication of such a book; this will eliminate most publishers as prospects.)<\/span><\/p>\n

The ideological difference in the new cold war is just as big as it was during the cold war; but, this time, America is anti-democracy, and its opponent, today\u2019s Russia, is pro-democracy \u2013 or at least not outright fascist. America has transformed just as much as Russia did, and they\u2019ve switched sides. This doesn\u2019t mean that the USA\u2019s fascism is like the USSR\u2019s communism was, but instead that both fascism and communism are opposed to democracy. Ours is a different type of dictatorship<\/span><\/a> than the USSR\u2019s was, that\u2019s all. That\u2019s the bottom-line.<\/span><\/p>\n

And that\u2019s what the Crimea-issue is all about: it\u2019s an ideological dispute.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/span><\/p>\n

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They\u2019re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010<\/i><\/span><\/a>,<\/i> and of \u00a0<\/i>CHRIST\u2019S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity<\/i><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Source of the \u2018New Cold War\u2019: The Basic Disagreement Between Obama and Putin Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic–culture.org INTRODUCTION The basic disagreement between U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the source of the economic sanctions against Russia, and \u2019the new cold war,\u2019 concerns the question of whether the process […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1254,"featured_media":187865,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[487],"tags":[115,96,887,535,59,753,543,524,523,49,1235,76,40,1024],"class_list":{"0":"post-187864","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-breaking-news","8":"tag-barack-obama","9":"tag-cover-up","10":"tag-crimea","11":"tag-global-news","12":"tag-military","13":"tag-police-state","14":"tag-putin","15":"tag-russia","16":"tag-ukraine","17":"tag-usa-news","18":"tag-war","19":"tag-warfare","20":"tag-white-house","21":"tag-ww3"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187864","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1254"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187864"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187864\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/187865"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}