What do the new US sanctions on Russia mean and how far might they go? RPI Executive Director Daniel McAdams is interviewed today on RT to offer some perspective:

RPI Advisor John Laughland weighs in on the Crimea vote to rejoin Russia, the breathtaking hypocrisy of the western governments and the disconnect between US and EU citizens and their governments. Of course the secession is illegal, Laughland says, but that also means that even the US Declaration of Independence was, strictly speaking, illegal. Dr. Laughland also offers his forecast as to the two possible outcomes of the standoff between Russia and the US/EU over Ukraine and Crimea.

The EU revealed itself as “oligarchic” and “anti-democratic” by calling the Crimean referendum illegal, John Laughland of the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation told RT. He added that more sanctions against Russia will only hurt Western economies.

RT: Western powers have denounced the referendum and this reunification treaty as illegal. Are they right? Do you agree or disagree with their position?

John Laughland: I strongly disagree with it. I think their hypocrisy is absolutely breathtaking. And I think many Europeans also see through the hypocrisy. If you look at the comment threads on the internet sites of newspapers on the issue, you will see that a large number of Europeans understand that there are double standards at issue here. The reason why I say so strongly that I disagree is that the EU yesterday, following the referendum held on Sunday, condemned the referendum as illegal. When it did that, it showed its profoundly anti-democratic nature because a referendum is, first of all, a very legitimate thing to have in a democratic system. And secondly, the Ukrainian constitution itself – Article 138 – allows the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to hold local referendums. So the EU really showed its face as an oligarchical and an anti-democratic organization when it condemned the referendum, rather than the secession. The secession, of course, technically speaking, is illegal. When every state secedes from another state there’s rupture in the legal structure of the state, from which the territory is succeeding. That’s the very definition of secession. So it’s a bit of stating the obvious to say that the secession is illegal. Obviously, it’s illegal in terms of Ukrainian law. But that means that nearly every single secession in the history of the world has been illegal. As well, the Declaration of Independence of 1776 by the American colonies against the British Empire was illegal in that sense.

RT: President Putin in his speech today mentioned the Kosovo precedent set by the West – do you think it’s a fair comparison?

JL: It’s totally fair. And it’s not just a matter of precedent because there’s a principle of law that a violation of law can’t be a precedent in law. It’s a very important principal in Roman law. And many people, myself included, consider the Kosovo Declaration of 2008 was itself a violation of international law because there had been a UN Security Council resolution proclaiming Kosovo to be an integral part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However, since the Declaration of 2008, the international law situation has been clarified in a ruling of the International Court of Justice, which Mr. Putin quoted quite rightly. The International Court of Justice is a supreme arbiter in matters of international law and their advisory opinions thought by Serbia. Unfortunately for Serbia, the judges there found against Serbia and ruled that the declaration of independence had been legal – and also, more generally, that throughout history, declarations of independence are never in conflict with international law. And they went even further. They said that the 20th century declarations of independence have been regarded as compatible and indeed supported by international law in the name of the principal of self-determination. So it’s not just the fact of independence of Kosovo in 2008, it’s more importantly – from a legal point of view – the Court of Justice ruling of 2010, which as I said, Mr. Putin rightly quoted.

RT: Everyone in the West and Russia seemed to be expecting this decision on reunification – and yet the sanctions imposed were limited in scope. Now that it looks irreversible, will Western powers see any point in imposing further punishment on Russia? What would they stand to gain?

JL: Well, they stand a lot to lose. I think Russia is going to reply. We’ll have to see whether the reply triggers further reply and how far each side is ready to go. I mean it’s very difficult to predict the future. The situation in Ukraine itself is very fluid. And we don’t know how things are going to evolve in the East or in Odessa. We don’t know how long the regime in Kiev is going to last. So, it’s very difficult to say what will happen. I think there are basically two scenarios. There could indeed be a severe degradation of East-West relations based on tit-for-tat sanctions, on increasing hostility, and, indeed, based on violence, instability in Ukraine itself. That’s quite possible. There’s also another possibility. And that’s that the West more or less, without admitting it, accepts fait accompli. After all, as many people have said, the sanctions are purely symbolic. They are a joke, in fact. No one really takes them seriously. France, for example, has said it will continue to deliver its aircraft carriers to Russia, the second of which is due for delivery in 2015 and bears the name of Sebastopol, the Crimean port. So far, the sanctions are very minor. And therefore the second possible scenario is that not much more will happen to Russia than happened to Turkey after it effectively annexed – not formally, but effectively annexed – northern Cyprus in 1974. Let’s not forget, there are many other occasions where states have annexed or effectively annexed other territories for reasons similar to that that is now operating in Crimea.

RPI Chairman and Founder Ron Paul, speaking on the Fox Business show The Independents Wednesday night, addresses the Central Intelligence Agency’s spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee — seemingly to cover up torture revelations against the agency. Paul notes the irony that Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) “doesn’t care about our privacy, but, lo and behold, she does care about her own.”

Watch the complete interview here:

In this episode of The Truthseeker, RPI Director Daniel McAdams is interviewed about the role of NGOs and state-sponsored “human rights” groups in pushing US foreign policy and training locals in the techniques of coup d’etat and regime change. The episode is a fascinating look into the role of these groups in unrest from Libya to Syria to Ukraine. From the phony “Kony 2012” film to the phony “I Am Ukrainian” film — all produced by individuals with US State Department contacts and backing.

Officially, US debt stands at more than $17 trillion. In reality, it is many times more. The cost of the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq may be more than six trillion dollars. President Obama’s illegal invasion of Libya cost at least a billion dollars and left that country devastated. The costs of US regime change efforts in Syria are likely thus far enormous, both in dollars and lives. That’s still a secret.

So who in his right mind would think it is a good time to start a war with Russia over Ukraine? And worse, who would commit the United States to bail out a Ukraine that will need at least $35 billion to survive the year?

Who? The president and Congress, backed by the neocons and the so-called humanitarian interventionists!

The House voted overwhelmingly last week to provide $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine. That is just the beginning, you can be sure. But let’s be clear: this is not money for the population of that impoverished country. The Administration is sending a billion dollars from US taxpayers to wealthy international bankers who hold Ukrainian debt. It is an international bank bailout, not aid to Ukrainians. And despite the escalating anti-Russia rhetoric, ironically some of that money will likely go to Russia for Ukraine’s two billion dollar unpaid gas bill!

So what happened in Ukraine? The US government and media claims that the US must save Ukrainian democracy from an invading Russian army that is threatening the country’s sovereignty. But in reality the crisis was instigated in part by US meddling. Remember the intercepted telephone call in which two senior Obama Administration officials discussed plans to replace the elected government in Ukraine with US puppets? That is exactly what happened. Is that not a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty? Is that what democracy is all about?
 
The Obama Administration’s policy toward Ukraine is hypocritical. The overthrow of the government in Kiev by violent street protests was called a triumph of democracy, but when the elected parliament in autonomous Crimea voted last week to hold a referendum to decide its future, President Obama condemned it as a violation of international law. What about the principle of self-determination, which is also enshrined in international law?
 
I have long thought that a referendum to reorganize Ukraine into a looser confederation of regions might help reduce tensions. I still believe this could help, but it seems the US government is not so enthusiastic about democracy when there is a chance for an outcome it opposes.

I strongly believe that Crimeans have every right to transfer sovereignty over their peninsula to Russia if they wish. 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.

The US government tells the rest of the world, “We want you to be good democrats and have elections,” but if they don’t elect the right people then we complain about it and throw them out, like we did in Egypt. In Crimea they want to have an election to determine their future. President Obama condemned those plans for a vote by saying, “We are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.” Does he not remember that the authorities in Kiev were installed just weeks ago after a US-backed coup against the Ukrainian constitution?

Congress next week will likely vote for sanctions against Russia. Though many mistakenly believe that sanctions are a relatively harmless way of forcing foreign countries to do what we say, we should be clear: sanctions are an act of war.
 
Cooler heads in the United States are not currently prevailing. There is a danger of an unimaginable conflict between the US and Russia. We must demand a shift away from a war footing, away from incendiary rhetoric. We are broke and cannot afford to “buy” Ukraine. We certainly cannot afford another war, especially with Russia!

RPI Chairman and Founder, interviewed on RT, explains that the United States should not bail out Ukraine, either directly or indirectly through the European Union or International Monetary Fund. “The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever from an economic viewpoint, from a political viewpoint,” says Paul, “It’s always vying for controls, and I think that is what’s going on.”

RPI academic advisor, Prof. Mark Almond, explains how the US and its NATO allies are suddenly realizing that they have unleashed a force in western Ukraine that is highly destabliizing, with the repeal of the language law and the repeal of the law banning Nazi symbols being the early legislation passed by the US-backed group in control in Kiev. Panic is setting in the West.

Said Almond:

Suddenly the whole mood music from Washington, from London, from Brussels, even from Warsaw, is to say reach out to the Russian population, reach out to the Jewish population that is fearful of this radical neo-Nazi type rhetoric and stormtrooper squads roaming the streets in some of the cities of Ukraine. They have realized that the coup that overthrew Yanukovich has not been the end of the drama, but only the first act.

It is the sign of a rather childish, almost unbelievably incompetent attitude on the part of the NATO countries that they facilitated this crisis without thinking through what would happen. That you are unleashing forces of nationalism, of fear, that can become uncontrollable.

Watch the whole interview here:

Speaking this morning on Fox News, Judge Andrew Napolitano, an RPI Advisory Board member, explains the Unites States Supreme Court’s Fernandez v. California decision this week that gives police greater leeway to search homes without a warrant. Napolitano describes the decision as a “U-turn” away from privacy protection that bodes badly for future cases before the court, including cases concerning the National Security Agency and the US government’s mass spying program:

A month before violence ripped Ukraine apart, RPI contributor Christine Stone provided an in-depth analysis of Ukraine’s precarious position, accurately forecasting the disaster that was to come.

Appropriately titled “Ukraine: Europe’s Partner or Puppet?” Stone wrote in October, 2013:

As the second most populous former Soviet republic, Ukraine has seemed uncomfortable with its independence since 1991 and less than committed to making it work. The fundamental issue has always been, does the country remain entwined with its larger neighbour Russia, or does it succumb to the blandishments of the West and distance itself completely from a country with which it was co-joined for over 1000 years?
…
With its shaky economy and political turmoil in several EU and euro member states, is this what the European Union really needs? With Russia now showing a more robust approach to what it sees as its ‘national interest’ who knows whether what seems on the surface to be an economic spat could lead to something deadlier.

Here is Christine Stone today discussing the aftermath of the “people’s revolution” in Ukraine:

“What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?”
– Rep. Ron Paul, US House, Feb. 13, 2009

Judge Andrew Napolitano, speaking on Fox News this morning, explains that it is both illegal and unconstitutional for President Barack Obama to use drones or other means to “targeted kill” United States citizens. Napolitano, an RPI Advisory Board member, elaborates that “only the Congress can enact a law” — not a president on his own — and that the US Constitution guarantees a jury trial to Americans, including Americans accused of treason, before the government can deprive them of life, liberty, and property.

A new Cold War? RPI Academic Advisor Mark Almond joins Peter Lavelle and guests to debate whether a new Cold War is brewing, pitting the West against Russia. The US media is hysterical in its attacks on Russia, says Peter Lavelle, even more strident than he remembers during the original Cold War. Prof. Almond points out that although the West’s ideological argument against Russia has disappeared — in some ways Russia is more capitalist than some of the European countries that join with the US to criticize it — the russophobia has become even stronger. All guests agree that there is a remote, but terrifying, possibility that the new Cold War may turn hot if the West continues to push the “Berlin Wall” toward Moscow. Watch this very important episode of Crosstalk: