Everything they say, these Pols, is scripted and rehearsed. I find it really, really difficult to tell whether their endless stream of dicta is serious, or just theater. It's always theater, of course, but sometimes it's also truly meant, and that usually means big trouble, but how does one know when they're kidding and when, not?
Clearly, the gabble that led up to the two wars this century, mouthed by Bush-II, was serious. When he promised endless war back in 2001, he meant it. Even in that case, though, how was one to be sure of it at the time?
It's a fine judgment, and opinions will differ and must be respected until much later, when alone one can be sure. Last Fall, for example, I think (but you may disagree) that Kerrybama did mean it, when they threatened to make war on Syria. Having lost two mid-East wars, I think they seriously intended to have a third, in hopes of getting lucky, and of positioning US forces next to Iran, their current pet-hate. What a deft piece of statesmanship, when Assad's friend Putin of Russia (or his helper Lavrov) caught hold of an off-the-cuff remark by Loose-Cannon Kerry and arranged that yes, Assad would surrender his chemical WMDs. That's what years of experience in the KGB, with competitive chess playing, can do for you.
Thus outsmarted on the world stage, Kerry seethed and set in motion a plan (A real, serious plan? Or just a pretend plan? Who can tell?) to thrust US influence deep under Russia's Southern belly, in revenge for the humiliation. He and his boss noticed stirrings in Kiev to get rid of Putin's puppet Yanukovich, and so sent Victoria “FEU” Nuland to hand out cookies in Independence Square.
In February, that worked, to the great pleasure of the courageous demonstrators there; and for a whole weekend there was peace in Kiev without sign of any government. Alas, that didn't last; it turned out to be yet another “revolution” by which one government replaced another. Since Kerrybama could take some credit (they had, after all, stolen the money that bought the cookies), the score now was even between Obama and Putin; 15-all, as they say in tennis.
Then came Vladimir Putin, through massive golden doors built in Tsarist times, to announce that in response to overwhelming (96%) popular demand, Crimea had been added to the Russian Federation. Kaboom; an ace serve. Score, 30 - 15.
Thus Ukraine has been divided; its Crimean peninsula, granted to it after a drunken orgy in 1954 by Nikita Kruschev, has been severed. Kerrybama may have gained a friend (an indigent one, it seems) in the rest of the country, but its naval base has returned to Mother Russia. And so he gets the Oscar, does Vlad Putin. His acting was way above Kerry's class.
The posturing has so far served its purpose; Putin has delighted Russian patriots, while Kerrybama have excited all Americans who can see “American interests” in terms of success by a world bully; from El Rushbaugh Leftwards. Happily, that subset of boobus Americanus is shrinking. The Libertarian view that the FedGov has no valid function as World Cop has been gaining serious ground recently.
Update: as I write this, a headline appeared: “Russian troops may be massing to invade Ukraine” says The Guardian. Well, of course they may; they may be massing to invade Poland. Or are they just marching up and down along the border, singing that priceless ditty from another Crimean War? Who's to know? But if they do actually invade non-Crimean parts of Ukraine, I'd say Putin will have seriously over-acted, and the score will change, we may be in deep water. But if you can read this and are still not vaporized, all may yet be well.
That, then, is the trouble: We cannot tell when they're kidding. Spinning and acting are all very well, they may provide entertainment for a dull weekend, but sooner or later, these psychopathic actors do actually begin a killing war. Their dangerous posturing underscores yet again the lethal nature of government and hence the urgent need to be rid of the lot of it before we are all destroyed.
That task is vital just from a consideration of self-defense, as I reasoned a while back in The Duty to End the State. The rational ethic of the anarchist is to preserve and enhance the self; most obviously, therefore, the true anarchist has an ethical obligation to terminate the outfit that threatens to destroy him.
That task is obvious: to remove them altogether from human society. I've no patience at all with the utterly crass idiots, some of whom can be found even on STR, who imagine it's sufficient to live under government radar (by itself, a fine objective) but to take no deliberate, rational action to end its lethal existence.