Interview with Ron Paul in The Guardian, on Ukraine

Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
8,340
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/15/ron-paul-crimea-russia-sanctions-act-of-war

The former Republican congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul has launched a scathing attack on what he calls a US-backed coup in Ukraine, insisting the Crimean people have the right to align their territory with Moscow and characterising sanctions against Russia as “an act of war”.

He also said providing economic aid to Ukraine was comparable to giving support to rebels in Syria knowing it would end up in the hands of al-Qaida.

The libertarian guru’s remarks in an interview with the Guardian are almost diametrically opposed to those of his son, the Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul, who has called for stiff penalties against Russia and declared: “If I were president, I wouldn’t let [Russian president] Vladimir Putin get away with it.”

Ron Paul, who retired from his Texas congressional seat in 2012, has always adopted a sceptical view of US foreign interventions. He said that although the US had not been involved in any military overthrow of the government in Kiev, it had facilitated a coup in the sense of “agitating” elements who wanted to usurp Ukraine’s former president, Victor Yanukovych.

“The evidence is pretty clear that the NGOs [non-governmental organisations] financed by our government have been agitating with billions of dollars, trying to get that government changed,” he said. “Our hands are not clean.”

There is broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for the movement that brought about the departure of Yanukovych, as well as criticism of Putin for Russia’s military intervention in Crimea, which many view as a prelude to annexing the territory.

A Russian-backed referendum, in which Crimeans will be asked if they want to align their government with Moscow, will take place on Sunday, although western leaders argue the poll has no legitimacy or legal basis.

Paul said Crimeans should be allowed to break away from Kiev.

“I think everyone should have right to express themselves,” he said. “It is messy, that is for sure, because two big governments are very much involved in trying to tell the Ukranians what to do.”

However he said Russia had a more justifiable basis for being involved in Crimea than the US, and no government should prevent locals on the peninsula from determining their future.

“That is our how our country was started,” he said. “It was the right of self-determination, and voting, and asking and even fighting for it, and seceding. Of course libertarians were delighted with the secession of the various countries and units of government away from the Soviet Union, so yes, we want the people to make the decisions.”

He added: “The people of Ukraine would probably have a loose-knit association, with a rather independent east and west, and an independent Crimea. It would work quite well.”

Paul, who now runs his own internet TV channel, also took issue with a $1bn aid package for Ukraine which is going through Congress.

“Now we’re getting involved with the Europeans in trying to change the government of Ukraine,” he said. “Now they want our money. It is just like when we when we go out and try and throw out [Syrian president Bashar al-] Assad, we end up working with al-Qaida. Now we’re likely to give money to Ukraine so they can pay their bills to Russia. That is the insanity of it all.”

His son, an increasingly strong contender for the Republican presidential nomination, made a similar point in the Senate on Thursday, when he voted against a bill providing aid to Ukraine.

The Kentucky senator is far more pragmatic than his father, however, and is on a mission to recast his reputation as a mainstream potential commander-in-chief. This week, he used an op-ed piece in Time magazine to exhibit his foreign policy credentials, adopting a tough stance against Moscow.

“Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community,” he wrote. “His continuing occupation of Ukraine is completely unacceptable, and Russia’s president should be isolated for his actions.”

He added: “Economic sanctions and visa bans should be imposed and enforced without delay.”

His father took the opposite view. “I think sanctions are horrible. They’re acts of war,” he told the Guardian.

“It is based on a moral principle of theft. They want to target sanctions against 20 or 30 bad Russians who they claim have committed a crime against humanity, and therefore we’re going to freeze their assets and steal them from them.”

When it was suggested his position was opposite to that of his son, Paul replied: “Neither he nor I have ever pretended our views are identical. He still has the most libertarian views in the Senate.”

This excellently cuts through a number of shoddy arguments:

1. That the US government has any standing to criticize Russia for intervention, as we also have our hands in that pie.

2. That sanctions are acceptable policy as a response to Russia's actions, as 1 applies, and 2, it illuminates, as with the income tax, that assumption is the government owns your production, and can prevent you from sharing that production with others who voluntarily wish to benefit from it.

3. That the people of Crimea can't somehow determine their own future, as Ron Paul correctly takes the Misesian view that self-determination is always proper.
 
Last edited:
3. That the people of Crimea can't somehow determine their own future, as Ron Paul correctly takes the Misesian view that self-determination is always proper.

I don't quite buy this line of reasoning. The situation is a little more complicated than simple "self-determination" rhetoric makes it out to be. For one thing, the people in Crimea most certainly are not in 100% agreement (95% or whatever the number was still doesn't count as 100% to me), so I don't see how this is a fair outcome by any means. It seems wrong to me for the same reason that direct democracy is generally wrong.

The more important geopolitical consideration here is (IMO): Crimea is also home to Tatars (who, along with other ethnic minorities, formerly made up the majority of Crimea's inhabitants until Stalin either expelled or killed them all and replaced them with ethnic Russians) who are persecuted by Russia even today, who are not going to be happy with the outcome of the vote. This looks like another Israel/Palestine situation to me, honestly, and there is no correct moral answer here IMO. I keep seeing libertarians at least showing more sympathy for Russia on this issue, though, and I just think that's a dangerous road to go down.
 
The Kentucky senator is far more pragmatic than his father . . . “Economic sanctions and visa bans should be imposed and enforced without delay.”

That's a pretty strange view of the meaning of the word "pragmatic".

Economic sanctions and visa bans will have no effect at all - at least no positive effect.

What is pragmatic about making some grand gesture that is obviously going to achieve nothing and help nobody?
 
That's a pretty strange view of the meaning of the word "pragmatic".

Economic sanctions and visa bans will have no effect at all - at least no positive effect.

What is pragmatic about making some grand gesture that is obviously going to achieve nothing and help nobody?
Congressman Ron Paul supported visa bans:

Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul wants Congress to deny student visas to individuals from countries that sponsor terrorism, and he favors similar restrictions on diversity visa programs for the same countries. The current list of terror-sponsoring states includes Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. Paul will work to incorporate these needed changes in our visa rules when Congress considers a homeland security bill this summer.

"Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of countries that don’t cooperate with our State department in fighting terrorism," Paul stated. "Most of the criminals who carried out the September 11 attacks entered the country using student visas, so we hardly should continue to open our doors to students from places like Iraq. If we are serious about conducting a war on terrorism, we cannot simultaneously give aid and comfort to our enemies, including the aid and comfort of living in the United States."

Paul sits on the House International Relations committee, which has jurisdiction over new visa rules in the Homeland Security Act. Paul want to ensure that any homeland security legislation focuses on terrorists and possible terrorists themselves, rather than innocent American citizens.

"We need to draw a bright line between American citizens and noncitizen residents or visitors," Paul continued. "We don’t need to sacrifice civil liberties to strengthen our defenses against terrorism. First and foremost, we must take control of our borders and prevent potential terrorists from entering the country. We also must do a better job of keeping track of those individuals we do allow to enter. Visas should not serve as a revolving door that allows our worst enemies to live among us."
 
Unfortunately Ron is incorrect on his point about sanctions, or at least not as nuanced as he should be.

Sanctions are only an act of war of the country they are being opposed upon considers them as such.
 
Unfortunately Ron is incorrect on his point about sanctions, or at least not as nuanced as he should be.

Sanctions are only an act of war of the country they are being opposed upon considers them as such.

So, do you think an aggressor is not an aggressor if the victim doesn't officially complain?
 
Unfortunately Ron is incorrect on his point about sanctions, or at least not as nuanced as he should be.

Sanctions are only an act of war of the country they are being opposed upon considers them as such.

Ya because we all know government leaders are always acting in 100% of whats best for their people. Man get real. All the countries the US has invoked sanctions on wouldn't of had a fighting chance against our military. Go make that statement in some sanctioned country and see how long you last. Its easy for you to disregard sanctions like its nothing while sitting at home, clean water to bathe in, a choice of what you want to eat etc etc. People in these countries past and present had to deal with that as their everyday life. Americans go ape shit, if your ISP connection goes down for a few hours or your favorite tv show is going off the air.

Seriously Collins, have you been to a country with little to no infrastructure? Where things like a band-aid is a medical god send. Kids losing their life from colds and flu. You can walk down to your corner market and get some over the counter medicine for a cold and flu, they can't.

You should change your location from World Wide because that is a obvious lie , to up Rands Ass.
 
I don't quite buy this line of reasoning. The situation is a little more complicated than simple "self-determination" rhetoric makes it out to be. For one thing, the people in Crimea most certainly are not in 100% agreement (95% or whatever the number was still doesn't count as 100% to me), so I don't see how this is a fair outcome by any means. It seems wrong to me for the same reason that direct democracy is generally wrong.

The more important geopolitical consideration here is (IMO): Crimea is also home to Tatars (who, along with other ethnic minorities, formerly made up the majority of Crimea's inhabitants until Stalin either expelled or killed them all and replaced them with ethnic Russians) who are persecuted by Russia even today, who are not going to be happy with the outcome of the vote. This looks like another Israel/Palestine situation to me, honestly, and there is no correct moral answer here IMO. I keep seeing libertarians at least showing more sympathy for Russia on this issue, though, and I just think that's a dangerous road to go down.

Do you think that the Crimean's should just submit to the heads of government that overthrew the elected government with support from foreign governments? That is, instead of asking for help from another government?
 
Refusing to sell someone something does not equate to aggression.

Sanctions are not boycotts; boycotts are a market phenomenon. Sanctions are the prevention of individuals voluntarily interacting, undertaken by governments. That is aggression. Furthermore, they're enforced with taxation, which is again aggression.

To take the position that sanctions are simply not selling something to someone, you must operate under the assumption that the government owns all production, and allows you to trade with allowable actors. This is the same logic at the heart of the income tax.

There's a term that describes the centralization and collectivization of property and production. And it's not the free market.
 
Sanctions are the prevention of individuals voluntarily interacting, undertaken by governments. That is aggression.
The Constitution does grant the federal government the power over foreign commerce. Although I disagree with sanctions in most cases, they are Constitutional.
 
All the countries the US has invoked sanctions on wouldn't of had a fighting chance against our military. Go make that statement in some sanctioned country and see how long you last. Its easy for you to disregard sanctions like its nothing while sitting at home, clean water to bathe in, a choice of what you want to eat etc etc. People in these countries past and present had to deal with that as their everyday life. Americans go ape shit, if your ISP connection goes down for a few hours or your favorite tv show is going off the air.
And the US is the only source of commerce for these other nations? :confused: :rolleyes:
 
There's a term that describes the centralization and collectivization of property and production. And it's not the free market.

Yes sir...

There sure is a word for that.

You know, on the flipside of the aggression front and more toward the olive leaf, I'd sure like to know the difference between aid and a loan. You know? Only because they seem to use those terms in various circumstances yet differently in context. Yet it's the same thing.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution does grant the federal government the power over foreign commerce. Although I disagree with sanctions in most cases, they are Constitutional.

And for what purpose? Does the president have the authority to punish through foreign commerce? I think the purpose of foreign commerce, (as with all the rest of the constitution having good purpose), is for prosperity and fair trade, not crony politics.

You keep changing your stance, better slow down...
Matt Collins said:
Sanctions are only an act of war of the country they are being opposed upon considers them as such.
 
Last edited:
Do you think that the Crimean's should just submit to the heads of government that overthrew the elected government with support from foreign governments? That is, instead of asking for help from another government?

I'm simply pointing out that the artificial majority-ethnic Russian population is "asking for help" from a government that has previously had and currently has a vested interest in oppressing minority groups that arguably have a more legitimate claim to being there. The best solution is obviously for Crimea to become an independent state. I'm just tired of the "Putin is an awesome cowboy" mentality that seems to be present on these forums at times. I detest when people oversimplify issues (in this case, turning it into a "self-determination" scenario).
 
The Constitution does grant the federal government the power over foreign commerce. Although I disagree with sanctions in most cases, they are Constitutional.

I literally said nothing about the constitution. Aggression is aggression, no matter if said aggression was authorized by an elite group of people 240 years ago and written on a piece of paper or if it's done without any legal backing. The constitution also enshrined slavery as legal. You'll forgive me if I don't start and end discussions of morality with the constitution.

The best solution is obviously for Crimea to become an independent state.

I completely agree. Unfortunately for the people of Crimea, this doesn't seem to have been in the cards this time around.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately Ron is incorrect on his point about sanctions, or at least not as nuanced as he should be.

Sanctions are only an act of war of the country they are being opposed upon considers them as such.

This time reading for comprehension:

His father took the opposite view. “I think sanctions are horrible. They’re acts of war,” he told the Guardian.

“It is based on a moral principle of theft. They want to target sanctions against 20 or 30 bad Russians who they claim have committed a crime against humanity, and therefore we’re going to freeze their assets and steal them from them.”

Asset seizure is certainly aggression.
 
How many of you that are supporting Putin's aggression into Ukraine supported Bush's aggression into Iraq?

If you support Putin's invasion, but condemned Bush's invasion, can you explain why you seem to be contradicting yourselves?

Did you support the "elections" in Iraq that were conducted post invasion with occupying troops watching every voter? If so, how can you support the "vote" for annexation in Crimea/Ukraine that were conducted under the watchful eyes of an invading soldiers holding automatic weapons?

I didn't support Bush's invasion of Iraq.

I wouldn't have supported Hitler's invasion/vote/annexation of Austria (the Anschluss).

And I don't support Putin's annexation the Sudetenland, er, Crimea, either...

Sorry, folks, I disagree with you and Ron Paul. MILITARY AGGRESSION AGAINST A SOVEREIGN NATION IS WRONG!

We can debate what should be done about it, but to support the aggression is hypocritical, anti-libertarian

I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals- even if Putin made up a good excuse (aggressors- Bush, Hitler, Putin, Hussein, Stalin- ALWAYS have a good excuse for their action).

Why are my fellow libertarians disagreeing with me on this?
 
It wasn't an invasion. By treaty Russia is permitted up to 25,000 troops in Crimea. There were no battles or resistance from the population. The people of Crimea and for that matter Southern and Eastern Ukraine had no say in the events in Kiev which were paid for by western interests. The new central banker president is hardly legitimate.

The people of Crimea are majority Russian by ethnicity with the majority of Ukrainians being Russified and almost exclusively Russian linguistically. The 97% vote shows the will of the people and international observers said the vote was fine. Why do you want to force this region into a country where only three percent want to be? Why was Crimea ever part of the Ukraine to begin with? The only historical reason is because Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukranian, gifted it unilaterally as Soviet premier. This is simply a correcting a mistake of history.

If the Russians wanted to take over all of the Ukraine they would have done so or would have done so years ago. Without western meddling,none of this would have happened. The manner in which this has been portrayed in western media is laughable, especially coming from a country with our track record in international affairs.

I suspect the eastern provinces will soon join Russia after a taste of the EU.

That's why as a non-interventionist I'm absolutely rooting for Russia against the EU/US in this scenario. A defeat here and perhaps the empire recoils and learns some humility.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top