Russia sends thousands of troops into part of Ukraine

As everyone who's not a "low-information voter" surely knows by now, Russia has sent armed troops into Crimea, which is part of Ukraine.

They started by taking over two major airports, so they could land cargo aircraft without risk.  At the same time, convoys of trucks loaded with troops drove across the border.  So far no shots have been fired.

Everyone on the right knew this would happen.  Hell, way back in 2008 GOP V-P candidate S. Palin warned that if Obama was elected, Russia would probably invade Ukraine.  Predictably, the Lying Media loudly ridiculed that prediction.

You might think at least one member of the MSM would have the grace to admit that ridicule was wrong, but of course being "progressive" means never admitting anything, so...

Oh, one other piece of the puzzle:  Back when the charming, politically sophisticated William Jefferson Clinton was prez, he and the Brits and the Ukrainians and the Russians signed a piece of paper called the "Budapest Memo," in which all parties pledged to respect Ukraine's borders as an incentive to get them to give up their nuclear weapons, which they'd inherited when the former Soviet Union broke up a year earlier.  Among other things the signing nations acknowledged an

...obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

So now that Putin has used the threat of force, Obama must find a way to ignore or repudiate that document.  Of course, for a president who has repeatedly ignored our own Constitution--which was at one point said to be the supreme law of our nation--repudiating a mere "memo" is child's play.

And indeed, CNN reported that administration sources described the mass entry of Russian troops not as invasion but as an "uncontested arrival."  So no threat of force.  Not even a hint.

Just as Obama said there was "not a smidgen of corruption" at the IRS.

Blogger Wretchard at Belmont notes that for deterrence to work, it must be self-evident.  That is, if an aggressive national leader isn't already fairly certain that his doing "X" will result in unacceptably painful consequences from the U.S. and/or allies, making somber warning statements isn't going to have any effect.

And it hasn't.  In fact most observers have interpreted Obama's statements about the "arrival" as a signal to Putin that the U.S. won't object.

Interesting times, eh? 

Oh, I see the Democrats are noting--correctly--that the "Budapest memo" is not a treaty so the U.S. has absolutely no obligation at all to honor it.  And sure enough, I can find nothing in the record to indicate that the Clinton administration even thought about submitting it to the senate.

This suggests that Clinton never had any intention of honoring it, and never considered it a serious piece of work.  But in that case, why did he push to create it in the first place?  To put it another way, it seems the height of cynical depravity to solemnly sign an agreement you have no intention of honoring.  That seems a pretty lousy way to run a government.

Gosh, if only there were people who had access to presidents and were paid to ask them pointed questions, one might ask Clinton--who is on the news every week so apparently still alive--what his Grand Plan was in doing such a cynical thing. 

Let's see:  He could say that even though a non-ratified agreement wouldn't bind Republican presidents, it was his belief and hope that future Democratic ones would make good on it.  Ooooh, wait, that would reflect badly on...never mind.

Or he could say that he didn't bother trying to get it ratified because he knew it wasn't worth the paper it was written on, and he just did it as a favor to his good friends the Russians--who absolutely, positively didn't want their former vassal states to keep the nukes they had in place when it all went kaboom.  But that would reflect badly on...never mind.

And it's all academic anyway, because we don't have anyone in the U.S. who actually asks public figures anything but slobbering questions.

And in any case, as one of those famous public figures once said: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"