Liberals Wanting To Be Fair To Putin

Why is it that some liberals feel compelled to place America’s foes – even our outright enemies – on the same moral plane as their own country?

Consider the case of Erin Burnett who hosts a daily CNN prime time show.

Last  week, she commented that one could understand why Russian Leader  Vladimir Putin would be angry with the West’s reaction to the presence of his troops in Ukraine.  After all, the thirty-seven year old graduate of a prestigious college in New England noted, the U.S. sent troops into Iraq and Afghanistan.

So?

Do not motives and intentions matter?  Of course they do.  The fact that two people engage in violent acts does not necessarily mean that their conduct is morally equivalent.

 

Is a police officer firing his weapon at a bad guy committing a crime no better than the bad guy firing back?  They both resorted to violence.

The U.S. went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.  We invaded Iraq in search of WMD.  The fact that our efforts did not then bear fruit does not devalue the motivation for the efforts.

 

Why did Putin invade Ukraine?  No one believes the purported Kremlin justification that ethnic Russians were in danger.  Undoubtedly, the real reason is that the autocrat saw the Kiev turmoil as an opportunity to expand Russia’s “sphere of influence” which had receded in the wake of the collapse of the USSR twenty-five years ago.

Vladimir Putin doesn’t care if American news people approve of his conduct.  Yet who would think that a seemingly intelligent, well-educated liberal like Erin Burnett (and she’s surely not alone) would be so naïve.  But maybe naivety is not the right term.  That word connotes  ignorance due to a lack of experience or knowledge.

But the correct explanation for the Burnetts, and the President is properly included, of liberal American is that there is a willful quality to their ignorance.  Their theory that the U.S. lacks moral superiority on the world stage causes them to reject reality which is inconsistent with their perspective of moral relativism.

 

Consider the phrase “sphere of influence.”  That’s a term in common usage among historians and foreign policy scholars.  Applying it to nations nearby a country such as Russia, China or the U.S. is a neutral designation.  The bigger and stronger try to influence, if not control, the smaller.  That has always been the way of the world.

 

But do you think that Ukraine or any other former member of the Soviet Union chooses to accept “membership” in the Russian sphere?

Plainly the fact that Putin wants to extend his sphere hardly means that Ukraine should be obligated to acquiesce, particularly considering the evidence that its people want to align with free, democratic Western Europe. 

It would have indeed been nice, but of course ideologically incompatible, for Ms. Burnett to have pointed that out.  She could also have commented on the hilarity of an aggressive, anti-democrat like Putin claiming to be looking out for the democratic rights of Ukrainian Russians.

 

Note:  other Russian apologists besides Erin Burnett have suggested that Russia is legitimately concerned about Ukraine’s possible joining of the European Union and eventually NATO since that development would pose a military danger to Russia.  That simply is ridiculous.  NATO was established in response to the aggression of the Soviet Union against Western Europeans.  NATO has never been the aggressor.  Ukraine’s fear of Russia is historically legitimate.  Russia’s supposed fear of a NATO member such as Ukraine is historically preposterous.