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then, under Ukrainian pressure rescinded that vote.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.
