Rand's Statement on Situation in Ukraine

[Matt Collins]

Press release:

Sen. Paul’s Statement on Situation in Ukraine
​

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul today issued the following statement in reaction to the developing situation in Ukraine:

“We live in an interconnected world and the United States has a vital role in the stability of that world. The United States should make it abundantly clear to Russia that we expect them to honor the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which the U.S., Russia, and the United Kingdom reaffirmed their commitment ‘to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.’ Russia should also be reminded that stability and territorial integrity go hand in hand with prosperity. Economic incentives align against Russian military involvement in Ukraine. Russia, which has begun to experience the benefits of expanded trade with World Trade Organization accession, should think long and hard about honoring their treaty obligations and fostering the stability that creates prosperity for its citizens. Most importantly, Russian intervention in Ukraine would be dangerous for both nations, and for the rest of the world,” Sen. Paul said.

 

[jbauer]

Glad he got that out there. Ukraine has the possibility to start something very very bad.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

smh

 

[tod evans]

Moar warz!

 

[juleswin]

How about the opposition honoring the agreement they made with the current president? instead of power sharing, they replaced him as president, removed MP aligned with him, banned certain parties and charged him with war crimes. You cannot make any deals with western aligned govts, they will sooner or later renege on it. Russia knows how the west's No Fly Zone in Libya turned quickly into a regime change operation.

Just do what is best for your interests and if it means protecting ethnics Russians in Ukraine, then do it. Fuck Obama

 

[MrGoose]

They already invaded Ukraine and nothing's happening. US and EU wont do anything.

 

[compromise]

Moar warz!

He is condemning military intervention by a superpower, there's nothing warmongering in what he said.

Libertarians shouldn't just give the Russians a pass on stuff just because they're anti-American.

 

[Czolgosz]

He's no Ron.

 

[specsaregood]

He is condemning military intervention by a superpower, there's nothing warmongering in what he said.

Libertarians shouldn't just give the Russians a pass on stuff just because they're anti-American.

Fair enough; BUT at the same time: if parts of the now defunct Ukraine wish to secede and form a new govt with ties to Russia or just join Russia we should support their wish to control their own destiny. It sounds to me like Russia is only going into parts of the country where they are wanted.

 

[compromise]

He's no Ron.

So you think Ron wouldn't warn against military intervention?

 

[Czolgosz]

Topic sentence is all I needed.

 

[ObiRandKenobi]

if the same shit was going down in mexico, we would be getting in the middle of it. we would probably be annoyed if russia told us not to.

 

[thoughtomator]

Fair enough; BUT at the same time: if parts of the now defunct Ukraine wish to secede and form a new govt with ties to Russia or just join Russia we should support their wish to control their own destiny. It sounds to me like Russia is only going into parts of the country where they are wanted.

The question is how do you determine the will of "parts of Ukraine"? If left up to the West, it will be determined by the desires of central bankers and resource warriors half a planet away.

Everyone here needs to be aware that this allegedly "democratic" revolution is in reality a hardcore Fascist movement and we once again have the historically common situation where nobody involved in a conflict is in the right.

 

[specsaregood]

./

 

[compromise]

Perhaps you misunderstood me; I didn't propose that I/we/you determine it; but rather the people living there. It seems pretty obvious though that there are portions off the Ukraine that would rather become part of Russia or secede and become another country allied with Russia. I support them doing what they need to do if that is what they want. And if they want to call in help from Russia to do that, so be it.

I don't really have a problem with Rand's statement. And I'd suggest if the crimea portion secedes, then Russia wont be really violating any treaties in my book by giving them military aid.

There are a ton of people in parts of Syria that want to control their own destiny too, by making it into a Muslim Brotherhood Islamist state. If they want to call in help from the United States to pull this off, would it be wrong for a Russian leader to condemn that?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

RT has been reporting that their government says every action taken by Russia is in accordance with existing agreements with Ukraine, and that due to the Russian citizen population in Crimea, they reserve the same right as any other country to send in forces to protect their citizens abroad. While as libertarians we question whether any government should have such obligations, it is a reasonable posture to take as a rebuttal to Western claims that Russia is straight up 'invading.'

The proposed referendum on independence in Crimea is being moved up to March (it had been scheduled for May). It's likely the troops were installed to protect the region from vote tampering, or violence from anti-Russian factions bent on intimidating Crimeans from voting the "wrong" way. Once Crimea votes for independence, the fiction that there is a 'unified Ukraine' to maintain will be objectively repudiated, and things will get even more interesting.

Rand's statement cleverly uses a tough verbal stance against Russia to indirectly articulate the non-interventionist message. So the neo-cons can't attack him as being "weak on Russia," and Rand can use his position to then shift the framework from "what are we going to 'do' about Russia intervening" to "nobody should 'do' anything, non-intervention is the best course all around."

 

[thoughtomator]

Perhaps you misunderstood me; I didn't propose that I/we/you determine it; but rather the people living there. It seems pretty obvious though that there are portions off the Ukraine that would rather become part of Russia or secede and become another country allied with Russia. I support them doing what they need to do if that is what they want. And if they want to call in help from Russia to do that, so be it.

Be careful that you are not basing your impression of what is "obvious" by the torrent of propaganda being spewed from Western media outlets. The only facts that you can really be sure of at this time are 1) This "revolution" was instigated by the US (as proven by the released tape of diplomats discussing the situation); and 2) Vladmir Putin isn't going to put up with this shit happening on his doorstep in a nation in which Russia has immensely vital interests.

 

[Brett85]

Rand's statement wasn't bad at all. You should read Cruz's statement if you want an example of a bad statement.

 

[compromise]

RT has been reporting that their government says every action taken by Russia is in accordance with existing agreements with Ukraine, and that due to the Russian citizen population in Crimea, they reserve the same right as any other country to send in forces to protect their citizens abroad. While as libertarians we question whether any government should have such obligations, it is a reasonable posture to take as a rebuttal to Western claims that Russia is straight up 'invading.'

So...RT is defending the Russian government? What a surprise.

 

[compromise]

Be careful that you are not basing your impression of what is "obvious" by the torrent of propaganda being spewed from Western media outlets. The only facts that you can really be sure of at this time are 1) This "revolution" was instigated by the US (as proven by the released tape of diplomats discussing the situation); and 2) Vladmir Putin isn't going to put up with this shit happening on his doorstep in a nation in which Russia has immensely vital interests.

I'm guessing you're a strong supporter of US intervention in Latin America during the Cold War then, since the "revolutions" there were instigated by Russia and the US President wasn't going to put up with this shit happening on his doorstep in nations where the United States has immensely vital interests.