Why Can't the West Acknowledge the Russian "Invasion" of Ukraine for What It Really Is?

To call Russia's invasion of Ukraine "an invasion" would call for a response that neither NATO nor Washington is ready to give. So the West equivocates, as it dithers and delays, incomprehensibly dismissing a mass movement of Russian troops into neighboring Ukraine as mere "interference."

Putin perpetuates this status quo by his repeated use of "lying" about his illegal military actions in an independent nation, making statements that both he and the West know to be untrue, in the process reviving the use of propaganda, a favorite tool of the former Soviet Union. 

Yet no one dares to challenge him, to call a spade a spade, to call invasion for what it is. Even President Obama himself refers to the invasion as an "incursion." 

This implausible denial of an invasion that has been occurring for the past few months is indeed a novelty I have not yet seen in Western politics. It is nothing but a form of cowardice. After all, to accurately name things, brings with it an ethical and moral responsibility to see them accurately, for what they are, and then for taking the necessary and appropriate actions -- a responsibility the West has repeatedly shown itself shamefully unwilling to accept.

So Putin plods on, plowing further into Ukraine, in large part only because we allow him to do so....

We all know what the truth is, yet the West not only keep hesitating, but also keeps searching for euphemisms, instead of simply stating and therefore acknowledging what is actually occurring.

And no, what has been going on in Ukraine has never been a "civil war," as it was formerly termed, so implying that the military actions there were arising spontaneously from within, rather than as a result of outside Russian provocation. (Also, with the use of the term "civil war," came the implication that what goes on within the nation was its own problem, making a similar shoddy case for Western inaction.)

I have even heard the Western media previously refer to the Ukraine situation as "The Ferdinand," implying that all the invasion is just an insignificant territorial dispute involving a major power and a largely unknown nation, and is therefore better left ignored, lest it become a powder keg that will set off a nuclear war. 

What does the use of all these misnomers and euphemisms and equivocations imply? Is the simple straightforward truth no longer relevant?  And what is all this use of newfangled milquetoast terms like "incursions" and "interferences" really all about? After all, we all know good communication requires clear and precise diction and avoids the use of vague, imprecise words that serve more to obfuscate than to communicate. Are we really no different from the former Soviet Union in that we no longer seem to be able to speak freely, clearly, and with conviction but express ourselves in some sort of distorted doublespeak. 

Have we all become puppets trying to appease Putin?

For how long will the West allow Putin to continue with his obvious lies in his war of aggression? For how long will we indulge him in his yearning for a return to Soviet times and in his quest for territorial expansion, as we dilly dally about sanctions and choose to not only ignore but remain oblivious to the larger implications of his actions and to the the humanitarian dictates of international law? For how long can the West deny its ethical and moral imperative to act decisively in the name of freedom, human dignity and justice?   

In the meantime, I am just getting more and more worried about Ukraine.... 

(c) Olya Thompson

On Libya: We Reap What We Sow

"What difference does it make!" Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shouted down the investigators at the Congressional hearings in a fact-finding inquiry as to the circumstances of the tragic death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya.

"What mattered was that four Americans died," Hillary went on, evading the question.

The controversy centered on whether the attack in  Benghazi was a result of a spontaneous uprising triggered by a hate video as initially reported, or whether it was a planned attack one the United States should have anticipated, which clearly turned out to be  the case.

Hillary was cheered on by her supporters for her chutzpah in standing up to her questioners.

But the point was that it did matter. And her defensive reply, even to Republicans making this into a partisan issue, was neither an adequate nor appropriate response. Certainly she did not address the circumstances of this tragedy, which cast a dark cloud over her tenure as Secretary of State.

She then acknowledged she took the "responsibility" for it, but not the blame.

I myself was wondering why our nation even  had an ambassador in Libya, given the lawlessness there. In addition, it was reported that Stevens himself had expressed concerns about his safety that went unheeded by the State Department. One also wonders why he was protected not by American security personnel but by a hired Libyan militia that in the end, as any observer might have predicted, failed to cooperate with tracking down the perpetrators. 

I cannot help but think back to Clinton's reaction as Secretary of State after she viewed a video of the barbaric and gruesome death of Col. Muammer el-Qadaffi. "We came, we saw, he died," she said blithely, as though our nation were some sort of conquering Caesar.

Our nation ignored those humanitarian calls for an investigation into the dictator's shocking death, although killing a captive without trial is illegal according to the laws of the Geneva Convention. We did not press Libya for justice, although the graphic video captured the images of the perpetrators. Instead, we joked about how dictators deserve to die.

Such actions or non-actions had consequences. Our nation cannot condone behavior that appeals to man's basest emotions, and then naively expect others to abide by the dictates of international law.

In a sense, we initiated this mess by our involvement in the NATO air attack that downed the dictator, euphorically claiming we liberated Libya, only to see our delusions of bringing democracy there give way to the rise of its militant factions. We then ignored the subsequent ominous pronouncements of Sharia law and the abrogations of personal freedoms there.

Those militants who stormed the Benghazi compound on the anniversary of 9/11 and killed the ambassador and three American citizens turned out to be no different than those who barbarically killed Qadaffi. A most sickening video of the burning compound and the obviously brutalized ambassador who reportedly died of smoke inhibition clearly made this point. As before, the perpetrators were known and identifiable, and the Libyans, as before, predictably did nothing.

It is about time the we acknowledge that there is a dark and grim side of the Arab spring, the rise of jihad and internal chaos. Clearly now, as before, Libya has no interest in holding its militants to account. And our efforts to bring to justice those involved in the attack on Benghazi are in vain.

Violence begets violence. We reap what we sow.

As we initially ignored barbaric actions that violated the sensibilities of any human being, we now find ourselves helpless to do anything when our own citizens are subjected to the same shocking form of Sharia justice.

I myself feel extremely sad about this most predictable United States foreign policy disaster.

http://olyasthoughtsonlife.blogspot.com/2012/01/on-libya-and-democracy_24.html

(c) Olya Thompson