Ron Paul Is Supporting Russia’s Illegal Occupation of Crimea

[DonViejo]

The libertarian godfather has become one of the biggest cheerleaders for the "referendum" that will lead to Russia's annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula.

In the Crimea crisis, it seems Ron Paul thinks that libertarianism stops at water’s edge.

The former Republican congressman and libertarian icon has long enjoyed a mixed reputation in the United States. While many admire Paul for his small government views on civil liberties, other shy away from a politician who has criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and allowed a series of racist and conspiratorial news letters to be published under his own name.

However, the former congressman whose presidential bids in 2008 and 2012 helped elevate libertarians from a political afterthought to a key constituency in the Republican Party and whose son, Rand Paul is poised for a 2016 bid for the White House, has now started a new chapter of his career. He's defending the chauvinist and imperialist Russian regime of President Vladimir Putin.

Over the past several weeks, Paul has become one of the most vocal American supporters of Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea, a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine. In the aftermath of a revolution that drove out its ally in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovych, Moscow is attempting to annex the province by holding a “referendum” Sunday in hopes that it will provide a patina of legality to its blatantly illegal land grab. Paul, long a foe of military action and democracy promotion efforts overseas, has not been content to limit himself to criticisms of American policies in Eastern Europe. He has gone out of his way to legitimize and justify the actions of Putin.

“He’s no angel but actually he has some law on his side,” Paul said earlier this week on the Fox Business Network. “They have contracts and agreements and treaties for a naval base there and the permission to go about that area.” While Russia has leased its naval base from the Ukrainian government in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol until 2042, the terms of that agreement explicitly prohibit Russian forces from leaving their barracks, never mind overrunning and occupying government buildings, violating Ukraine’s airspace, and taking over border posts.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/16/ron-paul-is-supporting-russia-s-illegal-occupation-of-crimea.html

[reformist2]

1. I support Crimea's right to leave Ukraine and join Russia.

Especially now, with an unelected government who don't like Russian-language speakers in charge in Kiev.

[newfie11]

2. I agree. Nt

[Adrahil]

4. Yes, I support self-determinnation..... BUT...

Holding this "referendum" with Russian troops occupying and with the Russians controlling pretty uch, well, everything is like Having 6 foxes and 4 chickens voting on what's for dinner.

This is a shameless display.

[Mass]

5. Agree, but this would have required the referendum to offer an option for the status quo.

This option was not offered. The choice was either join Russia or become an independent nation.

For the rest, I would refrain from offering opinions except for this one: we are subject to two propaganda channels, the US and Russia, who cannot be trusted on this issue. So, except being an expert on Ukraine, we should all acknowledge we know nothing.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

6. Do you support Texas and Rick Perry's call for secession? Didn't think so.

What Crimea is doing is called secession. If it was wrong for the South, it's wrong for the Ukrainian South.

[brooklynboy49]

3. I don't know enough to form an informed opinion

Having said that, I do have a couple of thoughts.

Firstly, that if a majority of Crimeans wish to be a part of Russia and proceed to do so in accordance with any and all applicable laws, that's their right, isn't it?

Secondly, I don't trust Putin as far as I can throw him.

Thirdly, I seriously doubt that 95.5% of ANY constituency is ever going to agree about anything. I find the results of the "referendum" highly suspect.

And lastly, I don't think it's really much of our business and don't see any reason why we should get involved, except diplomatically if asked to do so by our European allies.

At least right now, I see it as a wait and see situation. The emphasis on see. See very closely.

[ProSense]

7. Ron Paul supporting an illegal invasion?

But for Ron Paul and the acolytes at his think tank, a motley crew of Putin apologists and admirers of post-Soviet thugs, Sunday’s sham election is all about the spirit of 1776. He recently wrote that "The only question that remains is whether there will there be an honest election, and I don’t see any reason there can’t be.” He did this on the website of his Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, which, in light of current events might be better called the Ron Paul Institute for Russian Aggression and Economic Exploitation (Its director, Daniel McAdams, has referred to the American ambassador to Ukraine as an “outlaw.”)

Paul bases his support of the Crimean referendum on libertarian grounds, as if what’s happening half a world away under the watchful eyes of the Russian military is akin to a Tea Party protest demanding less federal control over education policy. “There should be a right of secession,” Paul said on Fox. One cannot consider Paul’s defense of the Crimean “secession” without first becoming familiar with his nostalgia for the American one.

<...>

There is an irony in a so-called “libertarian” defending the likes of Vladimir Putin. Ron Paul and his ilk claim to support individual rights, free markets, and a foreign policy of non-violence, yet here they are defending a man who hounds gays, presides over a kleptocratic mafia state, and invades his neighbors. Paul shirks the label of “isolationist,” preferring instead that of, “non-interventionist,” which is true only in the sense that he opposes interventionism – of even the non-violent sort – undertaken by the United States and its democratic allies. When it comes to violent Russian intervention in the affairs of its sovereign neighbors, however, Paul agrees with none other than former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who said that Moscow retains a “sphere of privileged interests” among the ex-vassal states of the Soviet Union. Why would a formerly elected official in America lend ideological cover to a foreign dictator’s assault on the basic human rights of his own people?

Imagine that! Ron Paul is a RW hack and hypocrite.

[Gothmog]

8. Ron Paul is an idiot

Ron Paul is from my neck of the woods. He is a crazed racist who is aligned with the Stormfront website. There are some really nasty people who are backing Ron Paul.

[Whisp]

9. The Fuck called Ron Paul should not be listened to

but unfortunately he has a fan club of adoring and annoying die hards, like the Snowy One and said membership.

Oh, and Ron Paul is a racist piece of shit.

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. And John McCain supports a new Cold War. Neither one are Democrats.

[Rex]

11. Well Ron has some real issues, anyone that trusts him has been duped.

These two idiots should NEVER be allowed to make serious decisions for the country imo.