One Man Foresaw the Coming Ukrainian Crisis

With all the think tanks and foreign policy geniuses that infest Washington D.C. you’d think someone in the Obama administration would’ve foreseen the fomenting conflict in the Ukraine.  But as usual, the bungling boobs that run this country, once again, fumbled the ball.  I no longer believe we should be astonished at their incompetence.  It should be expected.

Was there at least someone in the United States who warned of a Ukrainian schism?  As a matter of fact there was.  I dusted off my copy of Samuel P. Huntington’s, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.  In it, he described three possible scenarios.  I’ll relate one of them:

A second and somewhat more likely possibility is that Ukraine could split along its fault line into two separate entities, the eastern of which would merge with Russia.  The issue of secession first came up with respect to Crimea.  The Crimea public, which is 70 percent Russian, substantially supported Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union in a referendum in December 1991.  In May 1992 the Crimean parliament also voted to declare independence from Ukraine and then, under Ukrainian pressure rescinded that vote.  The Russian parliament, however, voted to cancel the 1954 cession of Crimean to Ukraine.  In January of 1994 Crimeans elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of “unity with Russia.”  This stimulated some people to raise the question:  “Will Crimea Be the Next Nagorno-Karabakh or Abkhazia?”  The answer was a resounding “No!”   as the new Crimean president backed away from his commitment to hold a referendum on independence and instead negotiated with the Kiev government.  In May 1994 the situated heated up again when the Crimean parliament voted to restore the 1992 constitution which made it virtually independent of Ukraine.  Once again, however, the restraint of Russian and Ukrainian leaders prevented this issue from generating violence, and the election two months later of the pro-Russian Kuchma as Ukrainian president undermined the Crimean thrust for secession.

That election did, however, raise the possibility of the western part of the country seceding from a Ukraine that was drawing closer and closer to Russia.  Some Russians might welcome this.  As one Russian general put it, “Ukraine or rather Eastern Ukraine will come back in five, ten, or fifteen years.  Western-oriented Ukraine can go to hell!”

With the ouster of a Russophile president, the Ukraine is indeed going to hell.  You’d think the State Department, which is infested with Clintonites, would remember the 1990’s.  Maybe they were members of Obama’s Choom gang.  Even recent history is too much for these drug addled wannabe hippies to remember.

The Clintons can be blamed for many things.  One of them is this whole multicultural nonsense that permeates our national discourse.  Since Professor Huntington was spot on in his observations of the Ukraine, here is another prophetic excerpt describing this Pandora’s Box the Democratic Party has bestowed upon us:

The multiculturalists also challenged a central element of the American Creed, by substituting for the rights of individuals the rights of groups, defined largely in terms of race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual preference.  The Creed, Gunnar Myrdal said in the 1940’s, reinforcing the comments of foreign observers dating from Horace St. John de Crevecoeur and Alexis de Tocqueville, “has been the cement in the structure of this great and disparate nation.”  “It has been our fate as a nation,” Richard Hofstader agreed, “not to have ideologies but to be one.”  What happens to the United States if that ideology is disavowed by a significant portion of its citizens?  The fate of the Soviet Union, the other major country whose unity, even more than that of the United States, was defined in ideological terms is a sobering example for Americans.  The total failure of Marxism…and the dramatic breakup of the Soviet Union,” the Japanese philosopher Takeshi Umehara has suggested, “are only the precursors to the collapse of Western liberalism, the main current of modernity.  Far from being the alternative to Marxism and the reigning ideology at the end of history, liberalism will be the next domino to fall.”  In an era in which peoples everywhere define themselves in cultural terms what place is there for a society without a cultural core and defined only by a political creed?  Political principles are a fickle base on which to build a lasting community.  In a multicivilizational world where culture counts, the United States could be simply the last anomalous holdover from a fading Western world where ideology counted.

Rejection of the Creed and of Western civilization means the end of the United States of America as we have known it.  It also means effectively the end of Western civilization.  If the United States is de-Westernized, the West is reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries.  Without the United States the West becomes a minuscule and declining part of the world’s population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass.

Professor Samuel P. Huntington passed away on December 24, 2008.  One must note that the timing of his death happened little more than one month after Barack Hussein Obama was elected president.  Without a doubt he knew what this man was about.