Update on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Referenda were held a few days ago by ethnic Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine on whether to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation, like Crimea.  Russian forces have been in the region fomenting armed insurrection, including the armed takeover of government facilities by their sympathizers, trying to cause bloody conflict with Ukrainian government forces to justify a full-scale invasion, while thousands of Russian troops remained menacingly massed on the Russian-Ukrainian border, instead of at their bases.  Ukraine and its supporters reject the validity of a referendum under such circumstances. 

As I posted previously, Russia had pledged by treaty to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, which it violated to seize Crimea.  The Russians are also trying to disrupt the planned presidential elections in Ukraine.  As in Crimea (see also my post from last month, The Russians and Iranians Admit Lying, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2014/04/russians-and-iranians-admit-lying.html), a United Nations report found no threat from the pro-Western interim Ukrainian government or other Ukrainians to Russian-speakers in Eastern Ukraine, allegations of which were the Russian excuse for intervention in Ukraine.  Furthermore, it found the only human rights violations came from the separatist Russophiles.   

It is noteworthy that many ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine reportedly are hesitant to be annexed by the Russian Federation because of the lack of freedom in Russia, led by authoritarian President Vladimir Putin, a Communist who is a former Soviet intelligence officer.  Like the Tatars in Crimea, Ukrainian Jews also feel threatened by the Russians. 

            If Crimea’s annexation had been justified by the Russians with the slogan, “Crimea is Russia,” then one must wonder what the excuse is for the annexation of eastern Ukraine.  Like Crimea, eastern Ukraine had been inhabited primarily by Ukrainians, after having been inhabited by Tatars.  Russians, descendants of the Rus, invaded from Muscovy to colonize Crimea, eastern Ukraine, the Transnistrian region of Moldova, etc., which thereby became parts of the Russian Empire, the predecessor to the Soviet Empire, known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  Eastern Ukraine is Ukraine, not Russia.  The obvious goal of Russia and its Russophile sympathizers is the restoration of the Soviet Empire, which means the absorption of peaceful, free pro-Western republics into the Russian Federation, or at least under its control as puppet states.

           Meanwhile, fellow former Soviet Republic Moldova, which fears a Russian invasion to seize breakaway Transnistria, a region on its eastern border with western Ukraine inhabited by ethnic Russians, reached a major agreement with the European Union for association.  The agreement will establish political association and economic integration.  Moldova hopes its association with Europe and the West will not only benefit it economically, but deter a Russia invasion.  

2014 Primary Election Day in Pennsylvania

As in several other States across the American Union, Tuesday May 20 is Primary Election Day in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

There are party nominations for important state and federal offices, such as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, United States Representative and state legislators (Representatives and Senators).  Additionally, there are referenda in some municipalities, as well as county and state party offices, on the ballot across Pennsylvania.  There are conservative candidates seeking election to these public and party offices and the ballot questions are matters of good government.  In some cases, candidates’ names do not appear on the ballot, but they are campaigning to have voters cast ballots for them by writing in their names. 

Pennsylvania has a closed primary system, meaning only electors registered for a particular party may cast ballots in that party’s primary to nominate its candidates.  However, any registered voter may vote for or against a ballot referendum.

Governor Tom Corbett and Lieutenant Governor Jim Cawley, Republicans, particularly merit the votes of the electors of Pennsylvania.  With the help of the Republican-majority General Assembly, Governor Corbett kept his campaign promise to eliminate Pennsylvania’s $4 billion budget shortfall left by the previous liberal Democratic Administration without raising tax rates and by reducing wasteful spending.  Despite the claims of his liberal opponents, he did not cut education, but restored education funding and raised it to a record-high level after the expiration of temporary federal stimulus funding.  Corbett signed a responsible natural gas impact fee into law that, together with other reasonable regulation, protects Pennsylvania’s environment and aids local municipalities affected by the industry, without surrendering the Keystone State’s competitive advantage in order to keep the industry in the Commonwealth, where it has provided a significant economic boost and increase in state revenue.  Corbett also cut business taxes, eliminated estate taxes for all family businesses, reformed unemployment compensation, reformed tort law, increased school choice, as well as openness, transparency and accountability in public education, signed a major transportation bill into law, and reformed the State's welfare system by reducing waste, fraud and abuse, among many positive initiatives that I have posted about over the last four years.  Corbett’s policies have helped reduce Pennsylvania's unemployment rate below 6%, which represents an increase in over 150,000 net jobs.

It is critical to vote for conservative candidates for all public and party offices, even if a candidate has no opposition named on the ballot, and for better government through referenda.  Conservatives who are registered Republican should vote to re-nominate Tom Corbett and Jim Cawley as Governor and Lieutenant Governor, respectively, while those conservatives who are registered Democrat should write in their names for their party’s nomination.

Gary Becker, in Memoriam

           Nobel Prize-winning conservative economist Gary S. Becker, who pioneered an interdisciplinary approach to economics with various other academic fields, and who recognized rational decision-making in economic and other matters, died earlier this month at age 83 in Chicago.

            Born in Pottsville, Pennsylvania in 1930, Gary Becker’s father was a small businessman who moved the family to New York City when his son was five, thereby exposing him further to business and stocks.  Becker earned a bachelor’s degree from Princeton in 1951 and a Doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago 1955.  He was a professor there for a few years, then at Columbia University for many years, before returning to the University of Chicago. 

There, free market defender and fellow Nobel laureate for economics Milton Friedman became Becker’s mentor.  Together, they formed part of the academic school of thought known as the Chicago School of Economics. 

            Becker wrote numerous books and articles over nearly six decades.  His most influential books and their dates of publication included the following: The Economics of Discrimination, 1957; Human Capital, 1964; and A Treatise on the Family, 1981.  Becker was also a conservative columnist for Business Week from 1985-2004 and then co-wrote a blog with Federal Judge Richard Posner for the last decade of his life.

            The work of Becker transformed not only academics, but has had a significant effect on economics and public policy.  He added the insight of sociology, demographics, psychology and criminology to economics.  Becker’s interdisciplinary approach is also credited with introducing economics to sociology.  He thereby changed the perspective of economics from treating people’s decision-making as irrational or emotional (e.g. based upon fear), to rational, and, therefore, predictable.  Becker targeted his intellectual curiosity and academic rigor to the subject of family decisions and crime, for example.  He concluded that criminals were not motivated only by mental illness or social oppression, as had been widely assumed, but by the perception that the benefits of the crime would outweigh the risks.

            Becker famously provided the academic research to back up the common-sense conservative argument against racial discrimination, or by analogy, against any other type of discrimination that is based upon arbitrary reasons.  He concluded that racial discrimination makes a business less competitive than those that hire based upon merit because a business that does not hire blacks at a relatively lower wage, must pay Caucasians at a relatively higher wage.  A related conclusion is that free market competition reduces discrimination.  

            Becker recognized altruism as a true motive, but also demonstrated how financial incentives can inspire altruism.  He was known for the famous theory of the “rotten kid,” whereby parental financial aid to a selfish sibling that is contingent on his well-treatment of his other siblings would induce him to treat them better then he otherwise would. 

            For his academic work, Becker received numerous awards and honors, including the Nobel prize for economics in 1992 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush in 2007.  In addition to awards in the fields of economics and statistics, he was made a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1972, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1997, and was the winner of the National Science Award in 2000. 

            Not confined to the halls of academe, Becker was a co-founder of a business and philanthropy consulting company.  He was also an advisor to Republican presidential nominee Robert Dole during the former Senator from Kansas in 1996 and served on an advisory body during the War on Terrorism.  Becker was hawkish against both budget deficits and terrorists. 

           Gary Becker’s significant contributions to economics and his model for interdisciplinary academic studies will continue to bear fruit toward a better understanding of mankind and to better economic decision-making, fiscal and other public policy.   

The Victimization of Cinfici by Obamacare

           In my last post, I reported the enactment of a law to prevent the federalization of health insurance, also known as “Obamacare,” to prevent small businesses from not being able to continue to offer their employees the choice of low-premium, high-deductible health insurance plans that make them eligible for tax-advantaged health savings accounts.  Since then, like many other Americans who were satisfied with their health insurance policies, I coincidentally learned that my own high-deductible health insurance policy will be cancelled because of the federal health insurance takeover, despite President Barack Obama’s false claim during his campaign for Obamacare that the insured who liked their current insurance plans could keep them.

            Because of the federalization of health insurance that was passed by a liberal Democratic Congress and signed into law by Obama in 2009, my deductible will increase over 25%, while my premium will increase more than 125%!  In return, I am now eligible for a series of benefits I mostly cannot use, such as for women’s or children’s health care.  The few preventive care benefits for which I am now eligible, for which I would have continued willingly to pay out of my pocket, are worth less in terms of financial cost than the increase in cumulative premiums, in addition to the increased annual deductibles. 

I also now see firsthand how the insured are treated more equally under the federalization of health insurance, which means there is less reward for healthy behavior than before, as the law eliminates insurance underwriting.  Thus, the insured’s insurance rates are less based upon their individual risk profiles, including their own lifestyles, but are is designed primarily as public welfare for those who are unable or unwilling to pay for their own health care and for those who are too ill to insure, as insurance is intended as a pooling of risk, ideally among those with similar risk profiles, not as a subsidy those who already require funds.  The federal health insurance takeover has thereby reduced freedom by reducing choice.  As those who do not need insurance because they can afford their own health care are being forced to acquire it in order to subsidize others, the choices of those of us who desire insurance plans to fit our individual situations are now limited.  Moreover, it appears that those individuals who were responsible to pay for their own health care or for insurance only for relatively catastrophic illnesses or injuries, are being punished by the federal government as if we did something wrong, in order to aid those who were too irresponsible to pay for their own health care.  Health insurance is not a federal issue, nor even a proper general concern for any government, but if it were, government ought to reward responsibility, not to punish it and reward irresponsibility.

The theoretical liberal premise of the federalization of health insurance is that, for financial cost controls and improving health, the focus of health care should be on those who are healthy in order to screen or prevent disease, instead of the treatment of those who are ill.  Therefore, the law removes the financial disincentives for preventive care.  This theory remains unproven, as there are numerous concerns, such as the increased risk to healthy people going to health care centers full of patients infected with various contagious diseases, and the financial waste and counter-productiveness toward the goal of improving health of spending (rationed) health care resources on the healthy, at the expense of the ill.  I submit how unnecessary it is to provide financial incentives for reasonable people to receive certain preventive care screenings or procedures they already receive regularly, even at their own expense.  In other words, government – in this case, the federal government – assumes that people would not act reasonably for the sake of their health because of financial reasons, and decides to force them to make what it considers to be decisions in the best interest of their health.  The federal government’s assumption that people must be incentivized financially to act in their best interest is an offensive kind of prejudice, that people would necessarily place their financial self-interest above the vital interest. 

The federalization of health insurance is clearly the embodiment of numerous liberal policy goals that are based upon various errors: obsession with money and lack of understanding of self-interest, especially financial self-interest; distrust of financial liberty; redistribution of wealth by taking from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not; radical egalitarianism; opposition to the free market, especially private enterprise; and faith in large, centralized government, aversion to the principle of subsidiarity and contempt for the constitutional principal of federalism, all at the expense of the rights of States and the freedom of the people.  

Conservative Republicans Get Liberal Democrats to Increase Freedom and Cut Taxes in Repealing Part of Obamacare

Earlier this month, the United States Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed into law a measure to repeal a provision of the law that federalized health insurance, “Obamacare.”  The provision would have prohibited small businesses from offering certain high deductible health insurance plans to their employees.

            By repealing the provision, small businesses may continue to offer such plans, which make their employees eligible to open health savings accounts (HSAs).  HSAs, which were signed into law by President George W. Bush, are tax-exempt accounts that earn tax-deferred interest.  Contributions to them may be carried over if not spent and are heritable.  Thus, they help reduce unnecessary health care spending by incentivizing saving.  By offering such plans, employees may exercise their freedom of choice to pay lower premiums in exchange for the higher deductibles, a choice which especially makes economic sense for younger workers without families.  Additionally, contributions to HSAs represent tax cuts, which lead to even more freedom, as people who contribute to them are freer to spend health care money as they see fit.

As I posted last month, this bill is the third repeal of a part of Obamacare that has been approved by both the Republican-led House of Representatives and the Democratic-led Senate and signed into law by President Obama, in addition to a major provision that was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  I share the concern of some fellow conservatives that reforms of a bad program make it more difficult to repeal that program fully, but Obamacare is sufficiently disastrous that these minor fixes do not prevent it from being undermined by its own provisions. 

In the case of welfare reform, conservatives were right to reform it – without compromising on principles – to prove that work is better than welfare, which produced spectacularly successful results of increasing employment and decreasing the deficit.  Similarly, in the case of Obamacare, conservatives were right both in terms of politics and policy to work to repeal minor provisions.  Politically, these efforts provide refutation to the liberal Democratic argument that conservatives and Republicans are focused only on repeal because of partisanship or by being too steadfast to ideological conviction to relieve people of unnecessary burdens, while having the additional benefit of further documenting how flawed the law to federalize health insurance has been.  Also, getting the liberal Democrats to go along with salvaging a Bush-era reform – without having to give up anything in return – is a noteworthy political accomplishment.  In terms of policy, the repeal of this particular provision increases freedom and reduces taxes, which advances conservative principles and represents good government. 

Conservatives should continue to work to repeal the federalization of health insurance totally, but should not pass up opportunities in the meantime to repeal some of its more onerous provisions, either through legislation or the courts, as long as these efforts are in keeping with conservative principles and do not strengthen Obamacare structurally in such a way as to make it more tolerable by the public.  When conservatives do, they ought to claim the credit they deserve.

Russians and Iranians Admit Lying

           On the same day, both the Russians and Iranians have reportedly today admitted to lying.  Russian President Vladimir Putin admitted that he lied about the Russian invasion of Crimea, while a former Iranian government nuclear official admitted that the Iranians lied about their nuclear program.

            The Russian Federation had denied that the military-like uniformed forces bearing no insignia that swept into Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula were theirs, claiming they were Crimean self-defense forces.  Putin’s admission that the men were Russian government forces not only undermines the justification for Russia’s actions, but lends credence to the Ukrainian accusation that Russian forces have similarly infiltrated eastern Ukraine to take over government facilities and foment insurrection among the Russian-speakers there. 

The Russian Federation’s goal is to push for independence referenda in eastern Ukraine that would lead to annexation by Russia, as it had in Crimea.  In the meantime, Russia hopes to spark confrontations between Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine and Ukrainian government forces in order to justify a Russian invasion based on its assertion of a new right to invade sovereign, independent states to defend Russian-speakers there.  It is a novel claim, since the defeat of Nazi Germany, that one state has such a right to invade other states to “protect” citizens in the invaded state who share the same language as the invading state.  As I have posted previously, Russia had signed a treaty recognizing Ukraine’s borders, which waives any historic claim it can now make to Ukrainian territory based on the presence of Russian speakers there. Putin’s reference to Ukraine as “New Russia” and its longstanding lament of losing the former Soviet Republics expose the Russian Federation’s imperialism.  Its perceived sensitivity about Western influence in its claimed sphere of influence is often used by Russians and their sympathizers to excuse acts of aggression that they would not tolerate were they made by any other state.  The West poses no threat to a peaceful Russia that would respect the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the states in what Russia refers to as its “Near Abroad.”  Just as the Russian government does not respect the liberty of Russian citizens, however, it does not respect liberty abroad.

In addition, a report by the United Nations found that Russia’s claims of Ukrainian violations of the rights of Russian speakers in Crimea were false, as there were no systematic or widespread incidents of abuse.  The Russians are following the same strategy in Ukraine as in Georgia of fomenting conflict, exaggerating abuses of minority rights and vilifying a pro-Western government it cannot control, to justify or at least distract from its own misbehavior.  The Ukrainians have promised to respect minority rights and have offered more autonomy to eastern provinces.  The report also refutes the Russian claims of the legitimacy of the deposed pro-Russian government in Ukraine because of the lack of freedom of expression or an independent judiciary and the jailing of opposition figures.  Ukraine’s pro-Russian government was thus no more legitimate than Russia’s or Venezuela’s, despite the pretense of democratic elections in these authoritarian states. 

            Meanwhile, the Iranians have been lying about the nature and purpose of their nuclear program for years, despite all the evidence to the contrary, in addition to their obvious deceptions.  Oil-rich Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but it has enriched uranium far beyond the degree necessary for the production of energy – to the point necessary for the production of nuclear weapons, among other steps it has taken that are consistent with the development of a military program.  The former Iranian nuclear official justified the lies by blaming Western mistrust, but the West and the Islamic Republic’s neighbors mistrusted the terrorist-sponsoring theocratic dictatorship because of its failure to disclose its programs and the obvious signs that Iran’s program was not based upon a peaceful intent.  

           Both Communists, like Putin, and Islamists, like the Iranian regime, believe it is justifiable to lie in order to achieve their ends.  They will continue to try to deceive everyone else about their true intent and to lie about their opponents.  Whatever one might be tempted to believe about particular individuals or governments that might oppose Communists or Islamists, it is critically important not to be distracted by any perceived faults or inconsistencies on the part of their opponents, which are often fabricated or exaggerated.  The lies not only suggest the moral bankruptcy of those who state them, but remind everyone of the Communists’ and Islamists’ evil intent.

The United States Supreme Court Ruling Expands Freedom of Expression by Striking down the Overall Cap on Political Contributions

           The Supreme Court provided another victory for freedom of expression earlier this month by striking down the cap on each citizen’s campaign contributions to congressional candidates overall per election cycle as an unconstitutional infringement on the freedom of speech.  The cap was part of the elaborate and burdensome system of campaign finance laws enacted by Congress and signed into law by Presidents over the years, starting with the 1975 post-Watergate liberal Democratic Congress.

            In addition to the limits donors may make to individual candidates for Congress, a cap of less than $50,000 was placed on the total amount donors could give to all congressional candidates each election cycle.  Therefore, a candidate could give many congressional candidates a small amount of money or the maximum to only a few dozen.  The cap was thus effectively a limit on the number of candidates to whom a citizen could donate to the maximum allowable limit.  As a result, citizens could not necessarily donate the maximum contribution of about $2,300 to all of the congressional candidates from their party in their state or all of the female candidates across the Union or all of the candidates of a particular ethnicity or religion, or all candidates who are veterans, or all the candidates who support a particular position. 

While retaining the limit on citizens’ contributions to each individual candidate per cycle, the Supreme Court ruled that the amount of the overall cap was arbitrary and the cap itself served no compelling government interest.  The majority of the Court struck the cap down as unconstitutional because it violated the freedom of speech.  The Court has previously defined making political contributions as exercising free speech.  Because the Supreme Court allowed the limits to contributions citizens can make to congressional candidates to remain, the Court hardly undermined the post-Watergate campaign finance laws cherished by the Left, as many liberals have hysterically alleged.  If a citizen cannot unduly influence one candidate, which is the basis of the supposed concern behind the laws, by making no more than the maximum permitted contribution, then neither can he unduly influence several candidates.

I would have agreed with Justice Clarence Thomas, however, who concurred with the plurality in a separate opinion, that the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to limit the contributions made by citizens at all, just as it lacks the authority to regulate campaign spending by citizens.  Therefore, he argues, all limits on campaign contributions should be struck down as unconstitutional restrictions on the freedom of expression. 

I would also argue that although contributing and spending money are types of political expression, they are not necessarily exercises of the freedom of speech, but of the press (i.e. the printing press), which means the freedom to print, or more broadly, to publish, as distinct from strictly oral communication.  Thus, print advertisements, television or internet ads or even radio ads are exercises of the freedom of the press.  Just as one must spend, and presumably raise, money to operate a printing press, one must raise and spend money to publish electronic ads.  Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruling is a victory for the freedom of expression, however it is defined, for all citizens or combinations of citizens. 

The ruling will also have the practical effect of making campaign fundraising easier, as one of the unintended consequences of liberals’ regulation of campaign contributions to reduce what they regard as the corrupting influence of money and specifically the disproportionate political influence of wealthy donors was that by limiting contributions, a candidate needs more donors to raise the equivalent amount of money he would have been able to raise absent the contribution limits.  As a result, campaign finance laws had the opposite effect of what was intended by making each maximum contribution all the more significant and thus more influential, as well as causing candidates to have to be even more concerned about raising money, and thereby to be even more vulnerable to its supposed corrupting influence.  Because of the Court’s ruling, each maximum contribution will constitute a less significant portion of a candidate’s total contributions, which, consequently, minimizes the influence of each individual donor, and each congressional candidate will be less vulnerable to the corrupting influence of money because it will now be easier to raise.  

Jeremiah Denton, Rest in Peace

           War hero, Rear Admiral and former United States Senator Jeremiah Denton died last month in Virginia at the age of 89.  He was famous as a prisoner of war during the Vietnamese War.

            Born in Alabama in 1924, Denton graduated from the Naval Academy in 1947 and became a naval aviator, instructor and test pilot.  Meanwhile, he earned additional degrees from the Armed Forces Staff College, Navy War College and George Washington University.  Denton is credited as the architect of the “Haystack Concept,” a tactic to conceal naval air carrier groups by making them appear as commercial shipping. 

            During the Vietnamese War, Denton served on the carrier, U.S.S. Independence.  His A-6 Intruder was shot down in 1965 by North Vietnam.  After bailing out, Denton was taken prisoner by the North Vietnamese.  He spent over seven and a half years as a P.O.W., half of which was in solitary confinement because of the organized resistance exhibited by him and his fellow prisoners.  In 1966, the Communist North Vietnamese forced Denton to participate in a televised press conference.  Seizing the opportunity, he famously blinked the word “T-O-R-T-U-R-E” in Morse Code to alert the world for the first time of the conditions he and his fellow Americans were suffering at the hands of their captors.  Denton also maintained his honor by affirming his support of the United States and its policy.  He was promoted to Captain during this time and was later awarded the Naval Cross for his heroism, the highest of his many decorations.  The bold move by Denton helped put pressure on the North Vietnamese to stop violating the Geneva Convention, but carpet bombing by American B-52 bombers in 1972 was even more effective.  Released in 1973, Denton made a famous speech on the tarmac at Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines in which he expressed the pride of the American P.O.W.s for having served under difficult circumstances and their gratitude to their Commander in Chief and the United States.

Denton served as Commandant of the Army War College from 1974-1975.  He retired from the Navy as a Rear Admiral in 1977.  In the meantime, Denton penned When Hell Was in Session, which told the story of the American P.O.W. resistance to the North Vietnamese captors, in 1976.  I recommend the book, which was later turned into a motion picture.  A documentary filmed entitled Return With Honor, which was the motto of the resistance, told the story of the heroic leadership of Denton and a handful of other officers in the prison camps who did, indeed, maintain American honor to the best of their abilities, despite torture and starvation.

After the war, Denton worked as a television broadcaster, advocating American aid for the resistance to the Marxist Nicaraguan government.  He founded the National Forum Foundation, now known as the Admiral Jeremiah Denton Foundation, in 1984.  Meanwhile, Denton was elected U.S. Senator in 1980, thereby becoming the only retired Admiral elected to the Senate, as well as the first Republican elected Senator from Alabama since Reconstruction and the first Roman Catholic elected statewide.  He served honorably from 1981-1987, compiling a conservative record.  Denton was narrowly defeated for reelection in 1986 by Democrat Richard Shelby, who later became a Republican.  

Jeremiah Denton served the United States of America for decades, with honor, and was a model of self-sacrifice and comportment in captivity.  He is an inspiration to all Americans.  May Jeremiah Denton rest in peace.  

The United States Denies a Visa to Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations

In an extraordinary move, the United States of America today has denied a visa to the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations because of his role in assisting the kidnappers of the American embassy staff who were held hostage for 444 days from 1979-1981. 

I had posted earlier this month to urge the Administration to deny Iran’s UN Ambassador entry to the U.S.  In the meantime, the House of Representatives had passed a resolution unanimously urging the visa be denied.  Some of the former hostages had spoken out against granting him the visa.

The denial of the visa sends a clear message that people who are involved with attacks on diplomats will not be accepted as diplomats themselves.  It also emphasizes Iran’s continued international isolation.  

Update on the Crisis in Ukraine

           The economic sanctions I had posted about last month have now been imposed by the United States Congress and President Barack Obama on Russia for its aggression against Ukraine.  The targeted sanctions are in addition to the freezing of assets and restrictions on the visas of a small number of Russians and Ukrainians complicit in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea imposed by the Obama Administration and the suspension of military cooperation.  Congress also approved a loan to aid Ukraine while the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suspended cooperation with Russia, other than in regard to the International Space Station. 

            The European Union has also imposed visa restrictions and economic sanctions on a few Russians and Ukrainian collaborators, while Switzerland announced it would not allow its banks to be safe havens for those individuals.  The EU also is loaning money to the Ukrainian government to bail it out of its significant debt and it reduced tariffs on Ukrainian imports, which will help make up for the 50% increase in the fee Russia charges Ukraine for natural gas and to help restore the Ukrainian economy, which is in recession.  The EU suspended important trade talks with Russia. 

            As I mentioned in a post last month, the U.S. and the other major industrial powers (the Group of 7, which includes Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan) already boycotted a Group of 8 summit in Russia and suspended the Russian Federation from membership in the group.  The U.S. and a number of its allies also declined to send governmental delegations to the Paralympic Games in Sochi, Russia, as also mentioned in the same post.   

I catalogue all these punishments of the Russian Federation in particular to note the price it is paying for its invasion of Ukraine, which is more than it paid for invading Georgia, although it is only a limited response that appears weak both to the Russians and to nervous Western allies in Eastern Europe, and worth the price for the gain the Russians perceive from winning Crimea.  Furthermore, President George W. Bush provided direct military support to Georgia, but there has been no military aid to Ukraine from the West. 

            Meanwhile, thousands of ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars have been fleeing Crimea.  All Ukrainian military forces have either withdrawn from Crimea or defected to the Russian Federation.  Russia captured all Ukrainian military bases and much materiel, including Ukraine’s Black Sea Fleet, while Russia has returned only obsolete tanks to Ukraine. 

            Tens of thousands of Russian troops have massed on the border with Ukraine and some of them did make an incursion north of Crimea, which increased Ukrainian fears of an invasion of eastern Ukraine, which is inhabited mostly by ethnic Russians.  Russia pulled back several thousand soldiers, but it is not clear if the move was in response to Western pressure or a feint. 

In addition to Ukraine and Georgia, there are concerns in Moldova and even the Baltic States over Russian imperialism, especially given the Russian Federation’s assertion of a right to “protect” Russian-speakers abroad, especially former Soviet territory that it deeply regrets losing and over which it claims a sphere of influence.   

The U.S., the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the EU must act by offering more support to Eastern European states threatened by Russia, such as implementing missile defense that protects against Russian missiles and opening a pathway for NATO cooperation or membership for more former Soviet republics while increasing the financial price on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea to deter further aggression and reassure Eastern Europeans of the West’s resolve to protect them.

Foreign Digest: Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan

Syrian Civil War Update

            The Syrian Civil War has now raged for three years, leaving over 150,000 dead.  There have been many injured and left homeless, while a multitude have sought refuge in other foreign states.  Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad, who remains unpunished for using chemical weapons against innocent civilians, continues his indiscriminate conventional attacks in residential areas that oppose his tyranny.  Meanwhile, although there has been progress in eliminating the Syrian stockpile of chemical weapons, about half of it remains. 

More Protests against Venezuela’s Dictatorship

            There have been more protests against the authoritarian Chavist regime of Nicolas Maduro, which have been met with more oppression and violence by the dictatorship.  The imprisonment of a major opposition figure for political purposes was one of the latest sparks of the demonstrations.  Venezuela has been wracked by high inflation and crime, in addition to suffering under tyranny. 

           

Afghan Presidential Election

           The turnout in Afghanistan’s presidential elections has been high, despite violence by the Taliban intended to disrupt the elections.  President Hamid Karzai is term-limited to two four-year terms, meaning Afghans are elected a new president.  Karzai is expected to allow Afghanistan’s first peaceful transfer of power. Security, corruption and the economy are major concerns, but one area of agreement among the candidates is the need to sign the status of forces agreement with the United States that would provide for the continued presence of a significant force of American soldiers after most units withdraw later this year.  I commend the Afghan people for their courage, resolve and commitment to representative government.  

Report from the 2014 Pennsylvania Leadership Conference

           The 2014 Pennsylvania Leadership Conference, the twenty-fifth since its founding, concluded in Harrisburg today.   

           I attended the PALC for the third time – the first since 2010.  See also my post, Report from the 2010 Pennsylvania Leadership Conference, from April of that year, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/04/report-from-2010-pennsylvania.html.  

Attendance at the PALC has increased dramatically since the early days of the conference, which is the Keystone State’s version of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. and always attracts first-rate speakers.  There are also far more exhibitors than before, advocating in regard to a diversity of issues.  The PALC is broadcast on the Pennsylvania Cable Network.  

A project of the Pennsylvania Leadership Council, the 2014 PALC (paleadershipconference.org), was sponsored by the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association, the Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Foundation, Americans for Prosperity-PA, Corbett for Governor/Republican Party of PA, Armstrong/Indiana Patriots and Action of PA, and co-sponsored by numerous conservative organizations.  I was only able to attend part of the Saturday sessions, which are all worth reporting here.

Columnist and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell observed how the first institutions that are targets for destruction by totalitarian regimes are the family and the church, as these are their main obstacles to control.  He explained eloquently how focusing on religious liberty does not in conflict with economic concerns because religious freedom is fundamental to all freedoms, including economic freedom.  Blackwell emphasized how religious liberty, in fact, is a prerequisite to prosperity.  He noted how far President Barack Obama’s policies were from promoting liberty.

Dr. Paul Kengor, a history professor from Grove City College who is an author of several books about Ronald Reagan and anti-Communism, reviewed eleven principles of Reagan that he identified and explores in his latest book on that particular subject.  He pointed out how many of them were related to faith and morals, in addition to Reagan’s view about limited government and the free market, as the 40^th President of the United States had a consistent view of freedom based upon virtue and conserving the time-tested collective wisdom of the ages.  Reagan had successfully united the social and economic conservatives because he believed in both social and economic conservatism, Kengor noted.  The historian contrasted the Marxist belief in the abolition of private property and the supremacy of the state with Reagan’s belief that every individual is more important than the state.  He also contrasted Reagan’s belief in peace through strength and Obama’s weakness in regard to Russian aggression, as well as Reagan’s belief in American exceptionalism based upon the recognition of America as more of an idea than a place with Obama’s view that America is no more exceptional than any foreign state.  Kengor observed how Obama’s vision of big government is the antithesis of Reagan’s belief in the American people and his confidence in the private sector.

A panel on emerging constituencies moderated by erstwhile Republican U.S. Representative nominee  Evan Feinberg was enlightening.  GOP strategist Lenny McAllister advised that Republicans and conservatives can appeal to urban voters by avoiding three tactics: an overemphasis on the Republican Party’s good record against slavery and racial discrimination, pointing out the obvious problems in urban areas and being overly argumentative.  Pennsylvania College Republican Chairman Christopher Wetherson observed how college students are noticing the failures of Obama’s policies, in terms of high unemployment for often debt-burdened college graduates and the disastrous federalization of heath insurance, and are thus open to a conservative message that offers a better alternative.  Having to pay for massive government debt was a concern of these emerging constituencies, the panelists noted.   

            Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor Jim Cawley drew a sharp contrast between the situation that faced Pennsylvania four years ago of recession, rising unemployment, a four-billion dollar state budget deficit, and high taxes, with the significantly improved situation today, thanks to the work of Governor Tom Corbett and the Republican-led General Assembly.  He reminded the audience how Corbett had eliminated the deficit without raising taxes and by regulating the natural gas industry responsibly instead of killing the goose that laid the golden egg, as the liberal Democrats running for governor and those in the legislature would do.  Cawley warned how the Democratic gubernatorial candidates were in favor of returning to the same failed liberal tax and spend policies that had harmed Pennsylvania before the Corbett Administration and how they are in favor of continuing Obama’s liberal fiscal policies and his federalization of health insurance, despite the hurt they are causing many Pennsylvanians.  He urged his fellow conservatives to keep Pennsylvania on the right course by working to reelect Tom Corbett Governor.  

           Michael Reagan, the head of the Reagan Legacy Foundation and former talk radio host, provided fascinating insight into his father, President Ronald Reagan.  The adopted son of the 40^th President extolled his father’s virtues of honesty and decency and stated that his father was the same genuine person in private as in public.  The younger Reagan emphasized the centrality of faith in his father’s life and movingly recounted how his father dedicated his presidency to God in gratitude for the sparing of his life after the attempt to assassinate him.  The son of the President also noted how his father, as an actor, was mindful of his audience and that his message of freedom was not intended only for those who were in freedom, but to reassure those behind the Iron Curtain who were not free that he was fighting for their liberty.  The younger Reagan noted how a man as great as his father is rare and that although his father is a good model for all conservatives, his fellow conservatives ought not to continue to look for another Reagan and thus compare everyone else unfavorably to him and how some conservatives today might reject their hero for similar shortcomings for not always adhering to conservative views.  Michael Reagan urged them to refrain from regarding each other as the enemy for not being conservative enough instead of recognizing the liberals as the enemy of liberty and, like Ronald Reagan, to seek common ground with each other and work for the greater good.  

Five-Year Blog Report

It has been five years since StatCounter began tracking pageviews of my blog.  Since my last annual report, there were nearly 400 more visits (not counting my own and counting only pageviews of other pages that are at least one hour after the previous pageview).  I also screen out computer-generated pageviews, to the extent possible.  I do not count total “hits,” meaning repeated views of the same page within an hour, which would add several thousand more to the total pageviews since StatCounter began tracking in 2009. 

Each post is viewed an average of 11 times, if views of the homepage are included.  Total visits are over 5,900, with several hundred additional pageviews. 

Although I posted fewer times last year than the year before, which attracted additional interest because it was a presidential election year, I attribute the lower number of visits to my blog to better screening out of computer-generated pageviews, as well as measures taken by visitors for greater privacy protection, in light of recent revelations, that make them impossible to be tracked by StatCounter.  These pageviews are noticed by Blogger, although only by country, not by city and even individual computer, as with StatCounter.   In fact, the queries for most searches are now encrypted, although not the results.  I can see, for example, that pages on my blog are often in the top ten highest or are even first on the list of results.  The queries are helpful in noticing visitors’ questions and posting answers, but I certainly understand people’s privacy concerns. 

The most popular post remains The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, with over 1,500 page views, followed by Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the National Constitution Center.  Nine posts have been viewed over 100 times.  Malaysia is the source of the most visits outside the United States.  The next most visits outside the U.S. come from Algeria, followed by the United Kingdom, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, India, and the Philippines.  There was even a visit since my last annual report from Rwanda.  Within the U.S., visits generally come proportionately from the States, according to population, outside of Pennsylvania.  Since my last annual report, there were two visits were from the U.S. Senate.

Thank you for visiting my blog and posting comments, or for the positive feedback some visitors express to me outside the blog.  Please feel free to post comments or to ask questions or suggest other topics.  Visit at least weekly to keep up to date, as only a limited number of posts are kept on the homepage.  Again, thank you.

The United States Congress Must Protect the Electricity Grid Now

           A solar flare on Saturday that disrupted radio transmissions, recent testimony before the United States Congress about the dangers of solar flares and electromagnetic pulse attacks (EMP), and congressional testimony earlier this year that revealed a number of attacks on electricity transformers, including a damaging sniper attack on an electricity generation plant in California last year, highlight the need for improved security for the electricity grid in the U.S.

Solar flares can not only disrupt radio transmissions, but ruin satellites and produce damaging surges to power plants and the electrical grid.  EMPs would permanently destroy not only power plants and the grid, but also any unprotected electronic equipment, including machines, vehicles, computers and appliances.  Backup electrical power would be scarce.  Much of the U.S. could be in range of a well-placed EMP attack. As it would take years to recover from such a catastrophic event, the destruction of the grid would thus be devastating to modern electricity-dependent civilization. 

            There are a number of steps that can be taken both by the federal government and voluntarily by the electricity industry to deter or limit the damage from attacks.  States also should do their part to defend the electricity grid, but because the grid crosses state lines, federal involvement is essential, in addition the domestic security aspect.  

           Some of the measures that would protect against the most severe threats are not cost prohibitive, especially considering the risk of not protecting the system.  Contingency planning is a form of insurance.  Just as a ballistic missile defense system would deter or at least provide some protection against a nuclear attack (which generate EMPs), greater defense for the electricity grid must be implemented. The East Coast of America continues to be unprotected by missile defense.  There also must be a plan to have backup transformers available, for example.  They are currently imported from Germany and would be difficult to replace with the electricity grid down, especially in the event of an EMP attack.  In addition, the U.S. must continue its cyber security efforts, as the electricity grid is vulnerable to cyber attack.  

           Conservatives should urge the U.S. Congress to lead the effort to protect the electricity grid now.

Deny Entry to the Militant Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations

           Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations aided the kidnappers of diplomats.  He provided translation services to the militant Iranian students who took over the United States Embassy in Iran in 1979 and captured its American staff and held them hostage, which made him a mouthpiece to militancy.  The Islamic Republic, instead of fulfilling its duty as the host state to protect the diplomats, supported the militants, who held the Americans until 1981.  Iran’s UN envoy has expressed no remorse for his role.

As Iran has no diplomatic relations with the U.S., the Iranian Ambassador the U.N. is effectively the Iranian regime’s representative in America.  The U.S. should not grant a visa to a diplomat with a record of violence against diplomats and embassy staff.  It should take the extraordinary step of denying entry to the Iranian Ambassador to make a clear statement that violence against diplomats is unacceptable and to show support for the former hostages. 

The Iranian regime is the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism.  It finances and arms terrorists who have targeted and killed Americans.  In addition, the Islamic Republic strongly supports Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, another state sponsor of terrorism, who is brutally suppressing a rebellion.  Meanwhile, Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, which threatens states in the region.  

The Republican Victory in the Florida Congressional Special Election Is another Loss for “Obamacare”

My last three posts have been focused on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I wanted to mention the latest political development in regard to the law to federalize health insurance that was approved by a majority liberal Democratic United States Congress signed by President Barack Obama. 

I had planned since last year to note how much of the law has been chipped away or delayed, but the delays have become too numerous to keep up with posting about them.  Already, two parts of the law (the 1099 requirement for businesses and the CLASS Act for long-term care), have been repealed, while the federal attempt to force States to opt into Medicaid expansion was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  There are numerous efforts by the States to limit the affect of the federalization of health insurance, as well as litigation about various parts of the law. 

In addition to its many glitches, the harmful effects of the law, now that it is being partially implemented, are finally being observed, such as the loss of people’s preferred insurance plans, increased premiums, loss of the ability to see one’s doctor of choice and decreased full-time employment as employers lay off workers or reduce them to part-time.  Most of these consequences were contrary to what the liberal Democrats had promised.  Opposition to the law to federalize health insurance contributed significantly to the Republican gains in the 2010 congressional elections, including the GOP takeover of the House of Representatives – before much of the implementation of the plan had begun.

The latest sign of continued public wariness of the law to federalize health insurance, or “Obamacare,” as it is known in politics, is the upset victory by a Republican in a Congressional special election in Florida.  The seat had been safely held by the GOP, until the death of the district’s longtime U.S. Representative.  The victory by the Republican, David Jolly, was considered an upset because voter registration within the district had shifted toward the Democrats.  In fact, the district’s electorate had voted for the Obama-Biden ticket in both 2008 and 2012.  In addition, the Democratic nominee was a statewide official and the Democrats, sensing victory, heavily outspent the Republicans. 

The reason the Republican won was primarily because he campaigned for the need to repeal and replace “Obamacare.”  Oftentimes, special elections for Congress are harbingers of the general election.  The special election in Florida clearly suggests that voters disapprove of the federalization of health insurance and are wiling to elect Republicans to make drastic changes to the law.  It also suggests they might hold incumbent Democrats accountable for the Obamacare fiasco and thus deprive them of their majority in the U.S. Senate, in addition to keeping Republicans in the majority in the House and possibly adding to their majority.  A GOP majority in both chambers of Congress would effectively limit what little mandate Obama had and further require him to make serious compromises, not only to reform his signature legislation, but to reduce the debt in a fiscally responsible manner without raising taxes or gutting defense. 

The Republican victory in the Florida special election will encourage other GOP nominees to campaign against Obamacare and provide them the opportunity to promote market-oriented, fiscally responsible, constitutional reforms, such as allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines and reforming tort law to reduce medical liability insurance rates, which, in turn, would lower healthcare costs.

Russian Inconsistencies Re: Crimea vs. Kosovo

           The Russians and their sympathizers are claiming that the West is being “hypocritical” in opposing the referendum for independence of Crimea after supporting independence for Kosovo.  The West is being entirely consistent in supporting liberty and self-determination, while the Russians and those who sympathize with them are the ones who are being inconsistent.

            First of all, hypocrisy, which is the most overused and misused word of our time, means a “false show of morals.”  A referendum for independence is not a moral issue, but even if it were, the West’s support for Kosovo’s independence was sincere, as is its repugnance of the Crimean referendum because the former represented self-determination while the latter does not.  What the Russians and their sympathizers mean is to accuse the West of inconsistency. 

            The West’s principles in regard to self-determination are two-fold.  First, overthrowing a government or declaring independence is justified only when liberty is not respected, which was the rationale behind the American Declaration of Independence, for example.  Second, self-determination by a people necessarily is expressed only if the choice is freely made.  Unlike in Kosovo, neither of these two principles was present in the case of Crimea.

            Kosovo had been an autonomous province of mostly ethnic Albanians within Yugoslavia (later Serbia) with a significant minority of Serbs, as well as others.  The Serbs, led by Communist Slobodan Milosevic, had stirred up antipathy against the ethnic Albanians, as they had against Croats and Bosnian Muslims during the various wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, which led to an independence movement and the declaration by the Kosovar government of independence after Yugoslavia had stripped the territory of its autonomy.  There were incidents of genocide against Kosovar Albanians, as well as forced deportations, which represented the same type of “ethnic cleansing,” as ethnic Serbs had committed in other parts of the former Yugoslavia.  After a N.A.T.O.-led air assault against Serbia in 1999, a truce took hold, backed by international peacekeepers under United Nations mandate.

The U.N. administered the mostly autonomous territory with the intent to determine the territory’s final status, including independence, and monitored popular elections until Kosovo’s popularly elected government declared independence in 2008, nine years after the end of Serb rule.  Kosovo chose not to merge with neighboring Albania, which had not invaded it, and to respect minority rights, including those of Kosovar Serbs.  In short, Kosovo, protected by peacekeepers, had freely chosen independence democratically, not union with the nation-state of its mother tongue, only after its liberty had been violated, after a lengthy period of transition, while guaranteeing the liberty of ethnic and religious minorities.

In Crimea, by contrast, there has been no genocide or forced deportations or any credible threats to ethnic Russians there.  The referendum was conducted hastily, without the opportunity of any significant public debate, which deprived the opposition an opportunity to organize and campaign, and without any international observation, unlike Kosovo’s elections.  In contrast to Kosovo’s declaration of independence, Crimea’s referendum did not represent a free choice because it was conducted without sufficient press freedoms or freedoms of assembly, with the Crimean people surrounded by Russian troops who had recently invaded it with the intent to annex it.  Furthermore, the Crimean referendum also did not permit a free choice because the options on the ballot were only two: greater autonomy in the ethnic Russian-controlled territory (de facto control by the Russian Federation) or independence (with the intent to be annexed by Russia).  There was no option for the status quo of autonomy within Ukraine.  The ethnic Russians in Crimea were stirred up by nationalist Russian propaganda that the Ukrainian government were “fascists” who threatened them.  It was not clear how many of the Russians were aware of the lack of liberty in authoritarian Russia they voted to join.  Not surprisingly, ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars mostly boycotted the referendum, meaning that the supposed 97% vote in favor of independence represented only the ballots cast by some of the 60% Russian electorate.  There is no guarantee by Russia, in contrast to Kosovo, of minority rights in Crimea.  Indeed, no ordinary citizen in Russia enjoys freedom fully.

           

Unlike Kosovo’s declaration of independence, the referendum in Crimea was neither justified, nor a free choice.  Therefore, the West’s support for the former and opposition to the latter is consistent with its belief in liberty and self-determination.  The West could support Crimean independence only if it were justified as being necessary and the choice were free.  Moreover, the United States had agreed to protect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity in 1997, an agreement to which Russia was also a party. 

In addition to violating its agreement to recognize Ukraine’s borders as including Crimea, Russia’s opposition to Kosovo’s declaration of independence is inconsistent with its annexation of Crimea.  Russia had opposed Kosovo’s independence because it supported the Communist government of fellow Slavs Serbia, despite Serbian crimes against humanity.  Russia had also opposed independence for other former Yugoslav territories that were not allegiant to it.  The brutal Russian suppression of the independence movement in the Russian territory of Chechnya is also inconsistent with the new Russian foreign policy of ostensibly supporting self-determination.  The Russian government’s only consistency is to pursue its own interests, regardless of principles.  

Russia Violates Its Treaty Recognizing Crimea as Ukrainian

In my last post, I mentioned a 1997 agreement in which the United States pledged to protect Ukraine.  That treaty, which was reached in order to eliminate Soviet nuclear weapons from Ukrainian territory, also included Russia.  In it, the Russian Federation agreed to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.  The Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea violates the agreement, in addition to broader international law.

Russian troops invading Crimea and seizing Ukrainian government facilities there, as well as those Russian troops who have made incursions into other Ukrainian territory wore no identifying insignia on their uniforms, which suggests that Russia has had to hide what it has been doing because it knew it was violating international law.

One excuse that Russians and their sympathizers are using to justify Russia’s conquest of Crimea, despite the 1997 agreement, is that the Black Sea peninsula had previously been Russian, until it was transferred by the Soviets to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.  However, by this reasoning, because Crimea had been part of the Ottoman Turkish Empire previously, it should be part of Turkey.  Indeed, just as there are Russian colonists in Crimea, the presence of which was used as a justification for uniting the territory with Russia, there are longtime Turkic Muslim inhabitants, too, namely the Tatars. 

In fact, the Russian Federation is the rump of the Soviet Empire, of which it is the successor, but it nonetheless is also the rump of the Russian Empire.  The Russian Federation is thus a polyglot empire.  While ostensibly supporting Crimean self-determination, it opposes independence from Russia for Chechnya, but the Russian Federation’s borders, territorial integrity and sovereignty, like Ukraine’s, are internationally recognized, just as Russia itself recognized Ukraine’s borders to include Crimea.  The question of sovereignty over Crimea was no oversight, but a major concern at the time because of Russia’s desire to maintain its Black Sea Fleet, which is based in Crimea. Ukraine agreed to lease the base to Russia, which was permitted no more than 25,000 troops in the autonomous territory.  

Russia and its sympathizers are also being inconsistent in their attempt to make the West seem inconsistent by comparing the referendum for independence for Kosovo to that of Crimea, as a legal justification for the latter referendum.  I shall refute this argument in my next post.

Conservative Commentary on the Crisis in Ukraine

           Russia has invaded the Ukrainian territory of Crimea.  Russia must respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity or else pay a price for its invasion, to deter it from any further aggression.

           

            The Crimean Peninsula is where the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based, at the port of Sevastopol, where the Russian Federation leases a base.  Russia is permitted to base up to 25,000 troops in the territory.  A majority of Crimea’s population is Russian.  Concern for the rights of linguistic minorities after the ouster of Ukraine’s pro-Russian government was Russia’s pretext for its invasion, despite any threat to the Ukrainian Russians.  Ukraine must respect minority rights, as its new government has declared it will.  Crimea is also a popular resort for Russians.  There is much pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea, as well as the rest of eastern Ukraine, but not all Ukrainian Russians necessarily wish to live under the authoritarian rule of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

            There is some fear in the former Soviet republics and in the West that Crimea is to Russia as the Sudetenland was to Nazi Germany.  In the case of the latter, Adolph Hitler insisted on invading the German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia under the pretext of protecting the Germans there and uniting them with their countrymen in Germany.  However, it has become increasingly clear that Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, after the Georgian government responded to Russian provocations in two breakaway republics, was a harbinger of its invasion of Ukraine.  Then, as I posted at the time and subsequently, Russia paid little price for its aggression against the former Soviet republic and its establishment of puppet states in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is essentially the seizure of 30% of Georgian territory. 

What little price Russia was paying for invading Georgia, United States President Barack Obama forgave without demanding any improvement in Russian behavior.  Some liberal defenders of Obama have criticized former President George W. Bush for trusting Putin before his Russian counterpart had established a record, but by the time Obama was inaugurated, Putin’s authoritarianism and aggression were obvious, which makes Obama’s forgiveness of Russia less understandable and hardly the basis for a defense of Obama’s Russian policy.  Indeed, Obama’s weakness allowed Putin to calculate that aggression would be worth the risk.

            This time, in order to deter any further Russian aggression and to reassure former Soviet republics and Eastern European states, Russia must pay a sufficiently high price.  Targeted economic sanctions and the freezing of assets against individuals associated with the Russian invasion of Crimea, a boycott of the Group of 8 Industrialized States Summit in Sochi, a rejection of the invitation to send a government delegation to the Paralympics in Sochi and the suspension of military exchanges have already been announced by the Obama Administration.   The boycott of the summit was joined by the other seven states.  The expulsion of Russia from the G-8 is under consideration, while the Congress considers additional measures.  The Administration has also announced a billion-dollar loan to Ukraine, through the International Monetary Fund, while the European Union is extending $15 billion in credit.  Although the U.S. is beefing up its military posture in N.A.T.O. territory near Russia, Obama is only providing non-military aid to Ukraine, despite a 1997 agreement in which the Americans pledge to defend Ukraine, in contrast to Bush, who provided military support to Georgia. 

            Ukraine should shore up its defenses of the rest of eastern Ukraine, without giving any legal recognition to Russia’s conquest of Crimea, which is a fait accompli.  The referendum set for Sunday by the pro-Russian Crimean autonomous government allows only two choices: greater autonomy within Ukraine (i.e. de facto Russian control through a puppet state) or immediate independence with the intent to join the Russian Federation (i.e. ostensibly de jure Russian control).  The referendum is of dubious legitimacy, even if the choices were wider, as the political advantage is tilted heavily to the pro-Russia side.  There is little time for the opposition to organize.  Regardless, the opposition would be campaigning in a climate of fear, surrounded by Russian troops.  Russian-style elections are notorious for the intimidation of the opposition, even without troops.  Although the U.S. and its European allies are threatening Russia with punishment if the referendum occurs, Crimea is expected to merge with Russia nevertheless.  Ukraine would then be wise to negotiate a peaceful withdrawal of its forces and the resolution of other issues, such as the transfer of property, while continuing to protest diplomatically Russian violations of its sovereignty.  Russia may eventually regret its imperialism, but in the meantime, the Ukrainian government must avoid any unnecessary loss of its troops who are currently being besieged by Russian forces in Crimea, and work out a deal on the best terms it can.   

          Conservatives should support tough measures against Russia for its aggression, resist unnecessary cuts to the military, offer more former Soviet republics and eastern European states a pathway to join N.A.T.O., as well as support the drilling for natural gas and the export of oil and gas, which would help deny Russia the wealth it uses to try to reconstitute the Russian/Soviet Empire.