Southern nationalists are divided as to where they stand on the situation in Crimea. Southern nationalist Connie Chastain offers this statement:
Meanwhile, the League of the South supports Russia’s acquisition of Crimea through a referendum, because it’s a secessionist movement. Indeed, I’ve heard that Dr. Michael Hill has invited Vladimir Putin to address the League at its next national meeting.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Crossroads 
Crimea was seized by Russian military force at the point of a gun and its democratic vote was a sham. The referendum gave Crimean’s only two choices on the ballot and so the league of the south is totally confused.
I agree with you Charles. Three cheers for Connie Chastain and her ability to see through Putin’s bullshit.
Unfortunately the League of the South aren’t the only folks who are totally okay with Putin’s annexing of Crimea, and the coming annexation of much of eastern Ukraine. There are some others too.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/04/14/the-putin-doctrine-myth-provocation-blackmail-or-the-real-deal/
I would also add that Ukraine is obviously a multiethnic country where there are plenty of other people besides Ukrainians, especially lots of ethnic Russians. Many of these ethnic Russians don’t support what Putin is doing in Ukraine. Many other Russians living there do, of course, but plenty others do not. So it’s not really Russkies go home, but Putin and Russian nationalists out.
I think besides being a Southern nationalist Connie Chastain is also an American nationalist. “Russkies, go home” sounds like some good ole fashion American nationalist anti-Soviet speak. I can’t say I really disagree with the sentiment.
Perhaps one should not rely too much on the advocates of Southern heritage to provide much in the way of useful insight in regards to the crisis in Ukraine, especially given their track record of analyzing events much closer to home arising from the Civil War.
Ukraine is a complicated situation and slogans such as “Russkies, GO HOME” (almost 60% of the population in Crimea is Russian) are no substitute for thoughtful analysis in regards to the question of an effective foreign policy, anymore than “Yankee, GO HOME” would have been to decision makers back in 1861-65.
Putin seems to be following in the footsteps of a long series of paranoid Russian despots, all prepared to use appallingly brutal methods to defend their nation’s interests against foreign powers. This is not to say that at certain times in their history they didn’t have something to be paranoid about. Drang nach Osten was no delusion and the memory of 20 million dead arising from the last armed incursion from “civilized” Europeans still resonates with many Russians.
Therefore, one would have thought that a sensible foreign policy for the United States and its European allies post- 1991 would have been to tread carefully with the Russians, making it clear to them which vital Western interests were to be defended, but also not doing anything to unnecessarily provoke them or feed their paranoia, thus destabilizing the balance of power. However, ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been the policy of the West to push the NATO military alliance ever farther eastwards. Perhaps in the “America is now the world’s only superpower” triumphalism circa late 1990’s, when the once mighty Russian state was in a state of demoralization and economic disarray, this seemed necessary to reach the “end-of-history” that was posited by some at that time.
Well, history isn’t quite over, and Putin is using Ukraine to show the world that Russia can and will push back against perceived Western meddling in its vital sphere of influence. Did people really think the Russians would not defend their vitals interests in Crimea, such as the strategic naval base at Sevastopol? This is not to say that Ukraine ought not to be afraid of Russian intentions or just roll over in the face of Russian aggression. Russia has attempted throughout its history to subjugate Ukraine, manifesting itself in such terrible atrocities as Stalin’s genocidal famine in Ukraine in 1932-33. However, if Ukraine is to assert its independence and defend itself against Russian designs, it must find a way to do so on its own and not as a client state of the West. From a Russian perspective, it is inconceivable to allow the permanent presence of NATO forces on Ukrainian soil. Ukrainians are only kidding themselves if they think the West will fight for their independence and the West ought not to be encouraging them to think that we will. Ultimately, alliances with foreign powers have utility only if your enemy believes that they will be there when you need them. Is the United States really going to risk World War III over Ukraine when there is no vital strategic interest at stake for the West, but conversely plenty at stake from the Russian perspective? Without a credible deterrent from the West, all we can do to help Ukraine is to make ringing speeches with empty promises, while hoping that some level of economic sanctions will help to dissuade the Russian bear from further aggression and towards finding a way to live with an independent Ukraine.
Did you know you are Anti-Southern?:
http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2014/04/16/anti-southern-professor-notes-leagues-support-for-crimeas-secession/
I know that some people consider me to be anti-southern, although upon further inquiry we understand that I’m really anti-white supremacy and anti-Confederate apologist. Certainly my in-laws (who are southern) don’t consider me to be anti-southern.