Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
Who are "the Ukrainan people"? The few thousand ethnic Ukrainians of Fatherland and Right Sector parties that protested in Kiev? Or the ethnic Russian demonstrators in Donestsk, Kharkiv, and Odessa in opposition to the new government? John McCain, Victoria Nuland, and others in Washington expressed strong opinions about what Ukraine's should be. The crisis would still exist regardless whether Moscow intervened in Crimea or not. The Ukrainian people expressed their popular will through an election that put Yanukovych in office (for a second time and was certified by international monitors as legitimate). Is it a democratic principle for a minority party to force the sitting president from office? Would we find it acceptable in the United States if the Tea Party occupied the White House and Congress until their demands that Obama resign were met? Probably not.

If we're concerned about Ukraine's democratic future, then we need to condemn political agitation by all outside parties, recognize the interests of the ~20% of Ukrainians who are ethnic Russians, and call upon the new government to recognize democratic principles by holding new elections. This month. Not in May or December. Given Ukraine's demographic condition and split idenity, from a foreign policy perspective, the country's best bet is the Austria or Finland model of neutrality. But neither Moscow or Washington or genuinely interested in the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine or the democratic aspirations of any of the Ukrainian people. And until we recognize that fundamental fact, we always be surprised by the actions of others.
OK … this comment is going to be less about the Ukraine specifically and more about applying political theory to human motivation … let me explain.

This is the second time in as many years that a duly elected leader of a country was removed from office by a “popular uprising” that has been embraced by the American people. The first was Egypt. In both cases the elected leader was cast aside because he appeared to be moving the country towards a identity based collectivist government. In Egypt the group was the Muslim Brotherhood. In the Ukraine it was Putin’s “Russia”. In Putin’s “Russia” the Russian State is the most important thing. It is a collectivist society. Nationalistic. Tied to a common identity.

In both cases it amounted to a choice between a government where the individual people held the power and were the most important political unit, or the Collectivist Group held the power and the group was the most important political unit. Hobbes’ Leviathan.

Don’t get wrapped around the axel over elections. That someone is elected is largely irrelevant. Autocratic, identity based leaders are elected and re-elected by the population they lead all the time. Elections are not the important point. Political ideology, either individualistic or communal, is. So, it does not matter if Yanukovych was elected. He was taking the country where those people of a individualist mindset did not want to go. We Westerners generally agree with that mindset, so we support a non-democratic change of power.