The hysterics are deafening: The “invasion” of Crimea has the pundits in an uproar, with the Krauthammers and Kristols and Kagans calling for a new cold war (verging on hot), and the “progressives” chiming in with calls for sanctions and making Vladimir Putin “pay a price,” as the President put it. Even some “libertarians” are getting up on their high-as-a-kite horses, condemning the Russians and attacking Ron Paul, who dared pose the question, “Crimea—so what?”
The D.C. wing of the libertarian movement was horrified. How could Paul say such a thing? Why wouldn’t he condemn the Russian invasion?
This is a peculiar invasion—if that, indeed, is the word to describe it. To begin with, it wasn’t necessary for a single Russian soldier to cross the border, because the Russian soldiers were already there. Second, this is one conquest accomplished without the loss of a single life: Nary a shot was fired.
When the Americans went into Iraq, they foolishly expected to be met with showers of rose petals; instead, they were met with showers of bullets. We wound up killing over half a million Iraqis, maiming twice that, and wrecking their country.
When the Russians took back Crimea, they were met with rose petals—and two thirds of the Ukrainian...