Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: To understand the Crimea crisis, just change the nation states

By Michael Krebs     Mar 19, 2014 in World
What if: the Ukraine was Texas, Crimea was Louisiana, Europe was Mexico, the United States was South America, and Russia was the United States? Would you meddle? Would you understand?
Putin claims the Crimean vote aligns with international norms. The West does not recognize the referendum. Sanctions are being imposed. Diplomacy is becoming more thorny.
Let's replace the states involved hypothetically for optimal understanding of Putin's thinking:
Ukraine = Texas
Crimea = Louisiana
Europe = Mexico
United States = South America
Russia = United States.
Texas, (which had once been an independent nation in the early frontier days of Comanches and frontiers), has always been a unique American state. It has vast quantities of oil and shares historical and political values with the U.S.
But in the 1930s, during the Great War (and to help repel the invasion from Northern Mexico), the U.S. required Texas to produce oil at maximum volumes and deliver the oil to other U.S. states and to the U.S. military complex for pennies on the dollar. To compensate Texas, the U.S. gifted Louisiana to Texas in the 1950s — over the objections of the majority of Louisiana residents.
In the 1980s Texas seceded from the U.S., and over the years that followed Mexico and South America began making economic overtures to Texas. Mexico even suggested that Texans adopt Spanish as their official language. While the U.S. had maintained its strong economic and infrastructure ties with Louisiana — including federal oil drilling permits in the gulf and important trade routes, ports, and military presence — the overtures from Mexico and South America were becoming more aggressive.
Then Mexico decided, with a greedy eye on Louisiana, to offer Texas a rich enticement: Join it's growing economic federation of Peso-oriented nations and export the vast oil products to the Peso-federated nations primarily. Mexican leaders began to negotiate with business leaders in Texas and with different influential political leaders within the Texas parliament, but the president of Texas was not really keen on Mexico's proposals because he still felt a kinship with the U.S.
But Mexico, and the considerably more meddlesome South America, (which has a history of toppling governments worldwide — democratically elected or not), were growing impatient with the Texas president, so they took their Peso-federation offer to the Texan public (many of whom were not faring well economically since the break away from the U.S.). Violence in the streets of both Texas and Louisiana ensued, as many people still identified with U.S. norms and perspectives and didn't really trust the Peso federation's motives while others believed the Peso federation would bring them a better life.
During the chaos that engulfed Texas, the president was forced to flee to the U.S., where he was welcomed.
The U.S. president and its people had seen enough. Texas militias were beginning to organize and reports were surfacing that they were securing key facilities in Louisiana — and Louisiana residents asked the U.S. to help them. The U.S. responded with troops, forcing the Texas militias — who were being encouraged by Mexico and South America — to melt away.
Since the Texas president had been forced to leave the country, Texas — and Louisiana — had no acting or internationally recognized government. Louisiana opted to hold an election to return to their original nation, and Mexico and South America (who all along wanted access to Louisiana's bountiful resources) objected and began issuing economic sanctions on the U.S.
Meanwhile, the original state of Texas (with Louisiana carved out) remained in flux — without an internationally recognized government.
Currently, the U.S. continues to monitor events in Texas and continues to express concerns about new military systems that could be installed in Texas by South America (a war-oriented people who have been engaged in violent conflicts far from their shores for decades, including drone strikes in sovereign nations, and have encouraged coups and civil wars in many U.S.-allied countries).
South America has publicly promised to install an advanced missile system across northern Mexico and throughout Texas. The missiles would easily be within range of any U.S. military base — including those in California and Virginia. The U.S. president believes this may be a time for his nation to wake up to these threats.
The U.S. has tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with the shifty South Americans — who change the terms on a whim as they once did with their own native peoples during their founding days. South America has a dark history of meddling within U.S. affairs — and when Northern Mexico had invaded the U.S. in the 1930's Great War, South America did not mobilize troops to help the U.S. repel the most brutal invasion to ever face a nation in the history of humanity. The Great War still resonates in the minds of the average U.S. citizen, and the bravery with which U.S. soldiers were forced to fight is told throughout U.S. historical texts.
Nobody in the U.S. trusts the words or actions of the South Americans.
It is time for the U.S. to stand its ground and to repel the economic and militaristic aggressions it faces. The alternative is subjugation to Mexico and to South America. There is no alternative.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of
More about Russia, Putin, crimea, Europe, Ukraine
More news from
Latest News
Top News