By: Brent Parrish
Like the saying goes, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does evil. Yet, for our current administration, appeasing evil is good. Besides, to your run-of-the-mill collectivist, there is no right or wrong, only shades of gray (get your mind out of the gutter); it’s an Hegelian thang. For the administration, Russia’s latest maneuvers in Crimea and Ukraine simply provide the basis for some “dialog” … a little consensus-building, if you will. We just need to find common ground, and then everything will be okay.
None of this should come as a surprise. This is the same bunch that embraces notions like “leading from behind,” and the “managed decline” of America–all in the name of fairness and equality, of course. It is not fair America should be a superpower, according to Barack Obama et al. We need to spread the “superpower” around, don’t ya know. I guess you could call it “power redistribution.” According to our oh-so “progressive” friends, there was power inequality with the United States being the world’s superpower; we had to level the playing field.
So what happens when you spread the “superpower” around? In my opinion, you create a power vacuum; and tyrants love a power vacuum. Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, obviously feels emboldened enough now to threaten Ukraine’s sovereignty. Of course, one must ask, why? And why now?
I can’t help but think of the infamous open-mic incident between U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2012. Obama assured Medvedev he would have the “flexibility” required to deal with missile defense issues after the 2012 presidential election.
When Barack Obama was in the U.S. Senate, he pushed a bill that helped destroy more than 15,000 tons of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine.
The Daily Mail reported (emphasis mine):
In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site.
The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds.
After a stopover in London, the senators returned to Washington and declared that the U.S. should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.
I find it impossible to not see the historical parallels of Putin’s aggressive moves in Crimea and Ukraine in comparison to Adolf Hitler’s actions prior to his invasion of Poland in 1939. I also cannot ignore the simple fact Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin share similar social values and goals.
For example, in March 1936, Hitler sent three battalions of the German Army to occupy the industrial heartland of Germany known as the Rhineland. The Rhineland was a demilitarized region set up as a buffer zone between France and Germany following the Germany’s defeat in World War One. Hitler’s bold move over the Rhine was a big gamble in international diplomacy, and a gross violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
German troops in the Rhineland had orders to hightail it over the Rhine bridges should the French Army attack. Hitler commented after sending troops into the Rhineland:
“The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tail between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance.”
Of course, the French Army did not attack. (One wonders how much differently things would have turned out if they had.) Obviously buoyed by his success in the Rhineland, Hitler went on to annex Austria in 1938. Once again, the Western nations did nothing.
Following the Anschluss (Union) with Nazi Germany and Austria, Hitler’s next ambition became Czechoslovakia. On March, 16, 1939, the German Wehrmacht (Army) annexed the northern and western border regions of Czechoslovakia, known collectively as the Sudetenland. Hitler used the pretext that he was simply protecting the German-speaking people living in Sudetenland, much like Putin declaring that he was simply protecting the Russian-speaking people in Crimea.
In a speech given on May 30, 1938, Hitler stated:
“I shall only decide to take action against Czechoslovakia if I am convinced that France will not march and that Britain will not intervene in the situation.”
Of course, once again, the Western nations did nothing to confront Hitler’s aggression. Much like the situation unfolding in Crimea and Ukraine, treaties and agreements to protect European nations from Nazi aggression were simply ignored.
It was around this time British prime minister Neville Chamberlain requested a meeting with Herr Hitler. Chamberlain agreed to allow Hitler to take over any area of Sudetenland with a majority German population. The meeting was held in Munich, Germany, on September 30, 1938, and was attended by Adolf Hitler, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, French premier Édouard Daladier and Neville Chamberlain. This became known as the Munich Agreement.
Naturally, no mere piece of paper was going to thwart Der Fuerher’s designs on the conquest of Europe. He was more than happy to sign anything the Western powers wanted him to sign, if it would provide him the leeway to move forward toward his ultimate goal of world domination.
Canadian prime minister Mackenzie King commented after a meeting with Hitler:
“Hitler seemed to be a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot. Hitler was a simple sort of peasant, not very intelligent and no serious danger to anyone.”
Following the annexation of Sudetenland, Hitler then played divide and conquer with the rest of Czechoslovakia by pitting Slovakia against the Czech region (similar to what Vladimir Putin is attempting in Ukraine following the annexation of Crimea). In short order, Hitler annexed all of Czechoslovakia.
And what was the response of the Western powers after Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia? Much the same as what we see now in regard to the Ukraine crisis: the Western nations merely threatened sanctions against Nazi Germany and signed hollow agreements.
I think W. Robson in his book Twentieth – Century History (1973) sums up quite well the reticence and reluctance of the Western powers to confront Adolf Hitler early on:
“There had been nothing weak or foolish about the attitude of the Western leaders. They tried to settle differences by discussion and conciliation, methods that had been highly successful in the 1920s. Their failure was due to the fact that Hitler took consolation for weakness and found that he could get his own way. He could have been stopped earlier but only at the risk of war. Discussion was the method of gentlemen, which explains why Chamberlain and the Western leaders favoured it and Hitler did not.”
Now consider the agreement by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to keep Ukriane’s borders safe if they agreed to gut their army.
Via Rush Limbaugh (emphasis mine):
I want to mention something here that came up late in the program yesterday, and I’m repeating it here at a different time in the program hoping to reach more people with this ’cause the Drive-Bys are not talking about this. I mentioned yesterday that Bill Clinton in 1994 (and then the Obama administration in 2009, reaffirmed it) gave official diplomatic assurances to Ukraine that their borders would be safe in exchange for the Ukrainians gutting their army and completely doing away with their sizable nuclear deterrent.
This has not been reported other than the UK Daily Mail has now published an article that reminds us that that wasn’t all Obama did for Ukraine. But the point is… Because the media isn’t telling you, I want to stress this again. As you’re watching what happened, as you watch us act outraged that Putin would do this, there were the number of signatories to this agreement. The UK, John Major and the Ukrainian prime minister. It was Boris Yeltsin for the Russian Federation, and Bill Clinton, and there was the ChiCom leader.
The reaction of the president and his minions to the Russian aggression in Ukraine brings up some disturbing questions in my mind. Is the Obama Administration simply appeasing Russia; or is the administration colluding with Russia? One of the staunchest socialist (a.k.a. progressive) members of the U.S. Congress, Alan Grayson, recently stated that we should be “applauding” Russian action in Ukraine and Crimea. I wonder if Barack Obama is of a similar mind? He certainly is of a very similar, if not identical, political stripe. I guess time will tell.