The Connection Between Syrian Gas Attack and Ukrainian Protest

Is there a connection between the alleged Syrian government's alleged gas attack on its own citizens and the protests in Russia? 

Let's start with Syria. Remember when the U.S. government threatened to use military force against the Assad government in Syria? It now appears that the "evidence" the Obama administration used to "prove" that Assad's government used sarin gas against it's own citizens was not accurately presented. Surprised? The source of this claim is none other than Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh. In fact, Hersh claims the administration lied. (You can read about that by clicking HERE. Strong stuff.)

If Hersh's claim is true, we can thank God the government backed down and did not put Americans in harms way based on false evidence. We might even recall that some of the groups that would have benefited from an attack on Assad were suspected of indirect and direct links to known terrorist organizations. I could go on about just how wrongheaded and immoral such an attack would have been, but I suggest we just our blessings for now that an attack was avoided.

Now to Ukraine. I've been avidly following the protests in Ukraine over their President's decision to stymie a proposal to join the EU. (There's minimal, though growing, reporting about this in the U.S. media. I originally came across a report on this in Germany's Der Spiegel a few weeks ago and it took days if not a week or more for the first hint in the U.S. media.) President Viktor Yanukovych is known to lean towards closer ties with Russia rather than ties with the EU. Many Ukrainians disagree with this, hence the growing demonstrations.

With all their bluster about attacking Syria, you don't hear much from the U.S. government about Ukraine, although Biden has called the Ukrainian President:

Vice President Biden called Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych on Monday to express "deep concern about the situation in Ukraine and the growing potential for violence," the White House said.
But that's pretty much all we've heard about this.

Now I generally prefer that our government keep its nose out of the internal affairs of other countries, especially when it concerns disputes between various groups native to those countries. Let them work out their own problems. But here we have a case of a people who have been under the fist of Russia for centuries, first of the Russian Empire, then the Soviet Union. The Ukrainian people achieved independence when the Soviet Union broke apart, but now are threatened both directly by Putin himself as he attempts to reconstruct the Russian Empire of old, and indirectly by Putin through his ally Yanukovych. At the very least, these schemers want Ukraine to stay away from the EU.

The protestors in Ukraine aren't terrorists they have no alliances I know of with forces unfriendly to the U.S. Wouldn't strong vocal support for the aspirations of a people seeking independence from a neighboring country that has dominated and bullied them for centuries make more sense than the charade over Syria? The U.S. government doesn't have to offer more than moral support. Indeed Ukrainian-Americans around our country did this vocally over the weekend in various demonstrations and continue to lend their support. Why does this government hold back its moral support? Could it be that when there's no chance for the government to assert military power, there's just no thrill in it for our esteemed leaders?

I'm reminded of the assertion that power attracts those types of individuals who enjoy using it. And there's not greater use of power - in other words no greater thrill - than the use of military might. If you've spent you life trying to grab the reigns of power that control the world's mightiest military, don't think that the temptation to use that power isn't intoxicating. And there's simply no thrill in coming to the defense of the Ukrainian protestors.