The Political Career of Margaret Thatcher

The political career of the formidable Margaret Thatcher began in the voting of the year 1950 and 1951, when she ran for a parliamentary seat on a Conservative ticket. During these elections, she was not only the only female candidate in the race, but she was also the youngest, at twenty five. Although she lost in both elections to the Labour party candidate, she managed to significantly reduce their majority in this constituency. Despite not being able to participate in the 1955 general elections, Thatcher, in the same year ran for the Orpington seat in a by-election in which she was also defeated, but in this case, the margin of defeat was quite narrow. This brought a realization that she could only win in a constituency where the Conservative party was downright dominant. To realize her ambition, she went looking for one such constituency, and as a consequence, was selected to run as the Conservative candidate for Finchley, where she was elected Member of Parliament in the 1959 general elections.

She made her first speech when she defended her bill, which required members of the local authorities to hold their council meetings in public. She displayed her strong will and character by going against the official position of her party by voting for the restoration of birching, which was a form of corporal punishment using a birch rod. From the outset of her career in politics, she declared herself a friend of the Jewish community. She was not only a founding affiliate of a pro Jewish group in her constituency, but she was also a member of the pro-Jewish association of the conservative party. Despite this friendship, however, she was of the opinion that Israel had to give up some of the land it had occupied in order to bring peace in Palestine. Moreover, she considered some of the actions of the Israeli government, such as the bombing of Osirak, as a severe abuse of international law.

In 1961, Thatcher was given an endorsement to the front bench by the Macmillan government of the time, and in this new capacity, she served as the Parliamentary Undersecretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. However, when the Conservatives failed to win the elections in the voting of 1964, she developed into the spokesperson for Housing and Land. Here, she showed her strong support for her party’s stand on allowing those tenants living in council houses to be allowed to buy their residences. In 1966, she was selected into the shadow treasury lineup where she was strongly in opposition to the policy of the Labour party which set compulsory price and income management, she stated that such policies would not help the economy and that they would, in fact, damage the economy. At a party conference in 1966, Thatcher criticized the high taxation policies of the Labour government, stating that they were going against the established order of British society and turning towards socialism, and perhaps they would later turn towards communism. Her main argument for this position was that low taxes encouraged people to work harder to earn an income.

She was among the small number of Conservative MPs to hold up the bill whose purpose was to decriminalize homosexuality in men. Moreover, she was also among those who voted in agreement of a bill to decriminalize abortion. She further gave her support for the maintaining of the death penalty but voted against the easing of the laws concerning divorce. These stances serve to show that while she was progressive in some of her views, she was extremely conservative in others. Edward Heath led the Conservative party to triumph in the 1970 general elections, and this proved to be an opportunity for her, as she was appointed Secretary for Education and Science. In her new position, she came to draw much public attention through her promotion of cutting spending in the education system. One of the most controversial moves during her first few months was the abolition of milk for school children at no cost. Because of this move, she encountered a lot of disapproval not only from the ranks of the Labour party, but also from the media.

The Conservative government, during its term, experienced a lot of difficulties resulting from the oil crisis of 1973 to the demands, by trade unions, for the increase of wages for workers. These difficulties led to the slender Conservative thrashing by the Labour party in the 1974 elections. This loss considerably weakened Heath’s leadership of the party, and Thatcher took this opportunity to challenge him for the leadership. Heath was forced to resign his position in the party after she trounced him, in the first vote, and William Whitelaw, the former’s preferred heir, in the second party vote, to become the new party head in 1975. To maintain the backing of the entire party behind her leadership, she appointed Whitelaw as her deputy. Because of the influence of the Institute of Economic Affairs, Thatcher was utterly opposed to the type of welfare state which then existed in Britain, believing that such a system was weakening the country. This institute was a firm proponent of the need for a reduction in the size of government, low tax, and more freedoms to allow businesses and consumers to run their activities without interference from the government. It is most probable that these ideas came to profoundly influence the policies of Thatcher, once she took the reigns of government.

In a 1976 speech, she made an attack on the Soviet Union’s aim to dominate the world, stating that while it did not care about what its people thought and put guns before everything, those who opposed them put everything before guns. These comments provoked a response from a soviet newspaper, which referred to her as the Iron Lady, a reference which stuck. In 1978, despite the economic improvement and the high ratings on the opinion polls in favor of the Labour party, the prime minister at the time, James Callaghan, chose to postpone the elections to 1979. The Labour party lost its popularity due to a series of events, such as strikes which occurred during that winter. The Conservative party took the opportunity to attack the Labour government, and this eventually led to its losing a motion of no confidence in parliament. This led to elections in 1979, with the Conservative party winning a comfortable majority in parliament, and its leader, Margaret Thatcher becoming the first female prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Thatcher’s stand on domestic policy, as in all other issues was clear from the start of her administration. During her term as Leader of Opposition as well as prime minister, there was an increasing racial tension within Britain. When asked about it, she stated that the minorities in Britain added a wide variety and richness and that when these minorities became influential, then the local people became frightened. She further stated that Britain had done so much to bring democracy to other parts of the world and that because of this, it was only natural for the British to feel threatened by those coming into the country, not knowing what influences they would bring. The Conservative party, under her leadership, managed to take away the majority of the support of the far right National Front, almost leading to the latter’s collapse. Thatcher, in her duties as prime minister, was required to meet every week with the Queen to confer about matters of government. This led to a lot of speculation concerning their relationship, with some media stating that they did not agree on many issues, and that, in fact, they could not stand each other. Such speculation gave rise to rumors that a constitutional crisis was at hand, but this was headed off when the palace issued a statement that the media stories had no basis on fact. During Thatcher’s term, she practiced immense thriftiness in Downing Street, which included her insistence on paying for some of the things she used.

Thatcher’s economic policy was based on the belief that the government needed to be in control of all the money in circulation. To achieve this, her government came up with policies that ensured the lowering of direct taxes, especially on income, and the increase of indirect taxes. Moreover, the interest rates were increased so that the money supply in the economy would be reduced, and as a consequence, there would be a lowering of inflation. Thatcher not only established limits on the cash that was used on public spending, but also on social services. Because of her cuts on the government expenditure on tertiary learning, she became the first Oxford educated, prime minister, after the Second World War, to be denied an honorary doctorate. Despite the expression of doubt concerning her policies among some members of her party, Thatcher declared that although they might want her to turn away from them, she would not do so. This expressed her will not to abandon her guiding principles because of her belief that what she was doing was right. Her economic policies came under a lot of criticism from the public, especially during the recession in the beginning of the 1980s, which saw her popularity drop. To counter this recession, she ignored the advice of the leading economists, and instead increased taxes.

By 1982, there were indications of economic mending because of the lowering of inflation, but this was shadowed by the fact that there was a high unemployment rate. In this period, the unemployment rate was so high, the like of which had not been seen since the 1930s. By 1983, however, due to her economic policies, the economy was much stronger with low mortgage rates as well as less inflation. Because of the falling unemployment rates as well as a strong, stable economy, the opinion polls in 1987 showed the Conservatives in the lead. This prompted Thatcher to call for elections a year early, taking advantage of the situation as it was at the time. This must have been an attempt to avoid the same mistake which the Labour government had made in failing to call for an election in 1978.

The 1987 elections saw Thatcher elected for a third term, a sign that her move to call for elections early was exceedingly wise for her and the Conservatives. In the 1980s, a ninety percent tax was imposed on the extraction of oil from the North Sea, and the Thatcher government used the revenue derived to balance the economy as well as to cater for the expenditure of reform. She brought reform to the local government by putting a poll tax in place of the domestic rates. The latter was a tax based on the ostensible rental value of a home, while the former was to be charged to every adult occupant. The imposition of this new tax proved to be one of the most unpopular moves that her government had ever made, and this led to a large demonstration in London, which ended up becoming riots against the poll taxes. These taxes were s unpopular that when her successor came to office, he had them abolished.

Thatcher was determined to ensure that the power of the trade unions was reduced because of her belief that they undermined parliamentary democracy as well as the performance of the economy through their right to go on strike. Her government introduced legislation aimed at reducing the influence of trade unions, and despite going on strike in response, the resistance of the trade unions crumbled. During the elections of 1983, an unexpectedly low number of trade union members (some thirty nine percent) voted for the Labour party. Some have stated that Thatcher singlehandedly destroyed the power of the trade unions in the United Kingdom for a whole generation. Notable among the confrontations between Thatcher and the trade organizations was during the 1984 – 1985 miners’ downing of tools. This was due to the proposal by the National Coal Board to cut several thousand jobs as well as close over a hundred state owned mines. The National Union of Mine Workers, was at the forefront of two thirds of the miners in the kingdom to protest the actions taken by the Thatcher government. In response, Thatcher rejected their demands, comparing the confrontation to the Falklands war, stating that the unions were more difficult to fight, making them a dangerous threat to liberty. The strike went on for a whole year, during which Thatcher refused to back down, and because of this, the trade union had to concede.

The strike gave the economy enormous losses and these were further added when the government went ahead with plans to close more mines, even those that were profitable. As a consequence, thousands of jobs were lost and this led to the devastation of whole communities whose livelihood depended on them. Thatcher had noted that miners had had a hand in the bringing down of the Heath government, and she was determined that they would not do the same to her own. She gained victory through ensuring that there were adequate fuel stocks, and that she had appointed a leader for the National Coal Board who was tough on trade unions. Finally, she ensured that the police had received adequate training and were well equipped to counter any riots. Due to the strong policies which Thatcher initiated against them, the trade unions in Britain came to lose a lot of their power, and with this came a decline in membership. Throughout Thatcher’s government, the trade union membership dropped steadily to number less than ten million.

One of the most fundamental policies of the Thatcher government was privatization and this was accelerated especially after the elections of 1983. More than £47 billion was collected from the privatization of government owned business as well as the auction of council houses. The preparation of state owned industries for privatization ensured that there was a marked improvement in the performance of these industries. Moreover, since most of the privatized industries were monopolies, their privatization did not significantly affect their activities since there was no significant competition. While the privatization of government owned industries benefitted consumers in many ways, there were also some negative consequences, such as job cuts. It can, therefore, be said that the results of these actions were neither good nor bad. The sector which Thatcher considered to be most exempt from privatization was the rail industry. She believed that doing so would be disastrous to the government. The selling of state owned enterprises was accompanied by the easing of the regulations on the financial sector to hearten the expansion of the economy. In 1979, the monetary management of the United Kingdom was abolished, and this allowed the investment of an increased amount of capital in foreign markets. The Thatcher administration promoted the development of the fiscal and service segments to make up for the decline in the mechanized industry of the United Kingdom.

Among the issues which were of significant concern to the conservative government was that of Northern Ireland. The earliest of these was when the prisoners in the Maze Prison held a hunger strike in an attempt to regain their former status as political prisoners. For the duration of the hunger strikes, there was an increase in violence in Northern Ireland in support of the detainees’ actions. Thatcher, as was characteristic of her, did not accept these demands, and declared so in public. However, her government privately negotiated with the Irish republican principals to bring their influence to bear so that the starvation strikes would come to an end. After the deaths of some of the prisoners, however, some of their rights were restored, but the Thatcher government refused to concede to reinstating their former status. In 1984, Thatcher had gone for a party conference in Brighton, where she barely escaped being assassinated by the IRA, in an attempt which left five people dead. Despite this incident, she led the Conservative party in a conference the next day, showing that she would not be cowed by the attempt on her life. This action increased her fame with the public, who derived confidence from her action.

Thatcher saw the need to involve the Republic of Ireland in the governing progression of Northern Ireland as a way of fostering harmony in the troubled area. To achieve this, alongside the Irish prime minister, Garret FitzGerald, she created Irish Inter-Governmental Council in the year 1981. The meetings of this council resulted in the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, which made available to the Irish republic an advisory task in matters concerning the administration of Northern Ireland.  This move provoked a protest in Northern Ireland and prompted Ian Gow, a Minister of State, to resign his post in protest. Gow was opposed to any form of compromise with the Republic of Ireland, believing that Britain had to take a tough stance on issues related to Northern Ireland.

In 1989, the earliest confrontation Thatcher received to her position as leader of the Conservative party came from Anthony Meyer. While she managed to defeat the little known MP from the backbench, his challenge showed the growing discontent with her leadership within her party. Her supporters within the party played down these allegations, stating that her landslide win showed that the majority of the party members still backed her. Although Thatcher received poor approval ratings in opinion polls, Thatcher declared that she did not care about what they said, often citing her unbeaten record since she first got elected. Instead, she chose to stick to her way of thinking without having to change to please anyone. The growing discontent with her leadership within the Conservative party continued to increase, and by 1990, poll results showed that the party had been trailing behind the Labour party for months. Thatcher’s aggressive personality as well as her tendency to overrule the opinions of her associates further led to the dissatisfaction within the party.

It was Thatcher’s willingness to overrule her contemporaries which contributed to her demise. Her decision not to be in agreement to a schedule for the United Kingdom to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism made her second-in-command, Geoffrey Howe, to resign from the cabinet. This resignation prompted her leadership of the party to be challenged and although she won the first round, she did not do so decisively. As a result, a second ballot was called, and despite the fact that she wanted to fight on, her cabinet advised her to withdraw. She resigned her position and was substituted by John Major as party head as well as in the premiership. The latter managed to bring back the party fortunes and in the 1992 general elections, the Conservatives were victorious. Thatcher remained in the backbenches as a representative for her constituency until 1992, when she chose to resign from the House of Commons.

In conclusion, it can be said that Margaret Thatcher was one of the most formidable politicians and prime ministers in the history of Britain. Not only was she firm in her beliefs, she stuck to them no matter what those around her thought of it. The policies of her government were directed at making Britain an environment which was free of government interference, especially when it came to economic matters. Her confidence in her convictions are what kept her going since she was first elected to the time of her ouster from leadership of her party. While this may have been her strength, it also proved her undoing because her unwillingness to compromise led to her losing the support of members of her party.

Anglo-Saxon Heritage, Multicultural Future by Charles M. Blow

An article on The Daily Telegraph in July quoted and advisor to Mitt Romney as saying that the special relationship between Britain and the United States existed mainly because of a shared Anglo-Saxon heritage and that the current administration does not appreciate it. This remark can be taken by some to be extremely racist because only a minority of Americans identifies their ancestry to be English. Such comments from an advisor to a presidential candidate may clearly display the real attitudes of that particular candidate and the negative influences that will be a part of his administration. The Romney campaign did not completely deny or retract that particular statement nor did they make an apology for it. This is not the first time that negative influences have appeared to distort the Republican campaign. One of the staunchest supporters of Mitt Romney is the business entrepreneur Donald Trump who has appeared on record saying that President Obama is not an American citizen and that he was not even born in the United States. Such matters have already been dealt with during the previous election campaigns and also when the President displayed his birth certificate to prove his American birth and citizenship. However, Trump has continued to pursue this line of attack against the President without considering how much his statements are hurting the Romney campaign. Romney has not attempted to break or to distance himself from his relationship with Trump and many may assume that Trump’s comments may be what Romney considers to be the truth. It is not advisable for Romney to continue keeping people with little constructive comments around him if he wishes to step into the White House.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/anglo-saxon-heritage-multicultural-future/

Democracy is not always the best form of government

The end of the Cold War ushered a new political era in the world – that of the liberal political order. While this movement began in Eastern Europe, it quickly spread, in part, to every continent. The result was that it ended up leading to a situation where Western liberal democratic ideals were adopted, at least in part. A consequence was that the United States, and its liberal democratic allies, took it upon themselves to ensure that the whole world became a part of the democratic order. They sought to make sure that those countries that had previously been dictatorships ended up adopting democratic systems of government.

One of the most important events to take place in the twenty first century is the American invasion of Iraq under the pretext that it had weapons of mass destruction. The result was that a relatively stable government under Saddam Hussein that had been in power for decades was overthrown. Later evidence showed that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and in fact, had ended its chemical and biological weapons programs after the end of the First Gulf War. Since the overthrow of Hussein, Iraq has never known peace because it has not only faced considerable sectarian government, but it has also had to endure an American occupation, and the rise of terrorism. Under Hussein, such groups as al Qaeda had no way of getting into the country because of the powerful security apparatus that had been in place. However, with the overthrow of the secular Baathist regime, the situation changed with first the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq, and its later incarnation, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Iraq has since then been mired in conflict with the country being effectively divided into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish regions; showing that Iraq as a nation might be doomed.

Another instance of an attempt to bring about democracy that has turned sour is the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Despite being an autocrat, Gaddafi had been at the helm of Libya for over forty years, and during this time, he had ensured that the country’s oil wealth was used for its development. Libya had risen from being one of the poorest countries in Africa to one of its most prosperous with its people having a high standard of living that people in some Western countries would have envied. However, the events that are called the Arab Spring took place and in Libya, the rebellion was based in the city of Benghazi. Gaddafi’s swift attempt to crush a rebellion that had the potential of destabilizing the whole of Libya was met with Western condemnation and active action, through NATO, to overthrow him. The success of the NATO operation created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled because since Gaddafi’s death, Libya has essentially been a failed state. It is divided between two main factions based in Tripoli and Tobruk, in addition to the presence of ISIS and largely autonomous tribal entities that have ensured the continued conflict in the country.

The promotion of Western liberal ideals had a direct influence on the development of the Arab Spring and the destabilization of Egypt, formerly one of the most successful states in the MENA region. Hosni Mubarak, the long-time Egyptian president who had been in power for three decades and had been a force of stability in the country ended up being forced to step down. He was replaced by Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood candidate who actively sought to make sure that Egypt became an Islamic state. This highly divisive figure was overthrown one year later by the military under Fatah el Sisi. El Sisi, the current president, has returned Egypt to a semblance of stability despite being accused of repression. However, by the time he took power, the damage - following the chaos that had taken place in the aftermath of the fall of Mubarak in the form of continuous protest, and ISIS-affiliated groups taking root in the Sinai Peninsula - had already been done.

Therefore, imposed democracy is not always the best form of government within the various cultures, and countries across the world. Instead, it has to be allowed to evolve on its own because it will more likely gain wide acceptance, and institutions aimed at protecting minorities from oppression will be put in place. Overthrowing autocratic regimes that are a force for stability in many countries is an exercise in futility because it does not take into account the need to promote conditions aimed at bringing about the evolution of egalitarian systems of government.

The Rise of Nationalism

There are numerous changes that have become a reality in the world today. Among these is the rise of the political right in Western countries, which have for decades been bastions of tolerance and liberalism. The rise of the right is a cause of concern especially considering that Western nations are increasingly focusing inwards; resulting in a threat to the liberal order that has sustained the world for decades. While it is the democratic right of all individuals in the world to choose the government that they feel best protects their interests, it is also important that they also consider their responsibility to others. Thus, the election of a leader like Donald Trump, with his nationalistic agenda, to the most powerful position in the world as President of the United States, puts the established global order at risk. It is, therefore, important that all the people with the ability to exercise their democratic right to ensure that they use it responsibly for the benefit of mankind rather than nationalistic interests.

Historical Injustices Part 2: Kurdistan

The Kurdish Question

The Kurdish Question, on the other hand, is one that is quite complex because people of this ethnic group span four countries namely Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. The Kurds have had a long and illustrious history in the Middle East, with an individual like Salah-ad-Din (Saladin in European history), the sultan of Syria and Egypt who fought against Richard the Lionheart in the Crusades, being of Kurdish origin. Despite this history, however, the Kurds have been victims of some of the worst injustices in recent history.

Because of both European and Middle Eastern imperialism, they have ended up in a precarious position where they do not have a nation-state to call their homeland. Instead, the land that they have occupied historically has become a part of four states. In Turkey, the Kurds have faced considerable repression because of their agitation for independence, with their liberation movement, the PKK, being labeled a terrorist organization.

The failure by the international community to do anything constructive towards ensuring that the Kurdish voice is heard is a sign that it has accepted the status quo and it not willing to bring about a change to the conditions that the Kurds are experiencing. The only country in the Middle East that has seen a considerable improvement in the lives of its Kurdish population is post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. In this country, the Kurds live in an autonomous region, with its own government, and under the nominal authority of the Iraqi government, since the latter does not have the ability to enforce its authority over the region by force.

 In Turkey and Syria, however, the government of Turkey is determined to ensure that a similar situation to Iraq does not occur. Its actions in recent years, especially during the Syrian civil war have been to support those rebel groups in Syria that are against the Kurds. It has also become directly engaged militarily in Syria to ensure that the Kurds do not form their own state that will connect to Iraqi Kurdistan; resulting in greater agitation for independence from the Turkish Kurds.

Unlike the Palestinians, the Kurds have shown considerable determination to establish their own state, and have fought for this right for decades. Their actions during the Syrian civil war has earned them international respect because they have been shown as one of the most effective forces on the ground, in addition to the Syrian government and its allies, capable of effectively fighting, and defeating ISIS. The effectiveness of the Kurdish forces in Syria has ensured that if Turkey attempts to thwart the formation of a Kurdish state in Syria, tentatively named Rojava, it will come at a high cost.

Historical Injustices Part 1: Palestine

In the contemporary world, numerous historical injustices have yet to be comprehensively addressed. These span the entire globe, with a significant number of them happening in non-Western countries. This case, however, will address two of these injustices, namely the Palestinian and the Kurdish Questions, in an attempt to analyze whether seeking justice for them is still feasible. We begin with the Palestinian Question because it is one of the most well-known in the world, with numerous attempts having been made to bring about an amicable solution between the parties involved.

The Palestinian Question

The Palestinian issue has been ongoing since 1948, when Israel was declared a state and a homeland for all the Jews in the world. This state was formed in land long settled by Palestinians and the creation of this state by immigrants from Europe and other parts of the world, was not taken well by the natives of the land. The result has been that since then, Israelis and Palestinians (with their allies) have fought numerous wars and seen considerable tensions that have led to a situation where the Palestinians have lost a majority of their homeland.

A large number of Palestinians have ended up in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, and others have become part of the Palestinian diaspora, especially in Western countries. Through its systematic expansion of its settlements in the occupied lands of Palestine, Israel has been able to disposes the Palestinians without much international criticism. Furthermore, some settlements in the occupied territories have existed for several generations, resulting in a situation where a status quo has been created. It is unlikely that the Jewish settlers will accept to leave homes that they have occupied for many years in order to make way for the formation of a Palestinian state. Any attempt to remove them has the potential of causing considerable conflict with whatever party that is involved. In addition, such a move would not be feasible because of the military superiority of Israel over the various Palestinian factions, which has forced the continued subjugation of Palestinians in their own land to date.

The two-state solution that has been promoted for decades is no longer feasible. This is because of the considerable number of settlements that have been created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian lands. Therefore, in order for lasting peace to be achieved, serious consideration for a one-state solution has to be put on the table. This is because Israel has already established its dominance over the entire land, and while they may have their own government, Palestinians are still essentially subject to Israel.

Instead of continuing to seek a two state solution that will never materialize, it would be better for both parties to make use of the current status quo to further the objective of establishing a single state for both Israelis and Palestinians. All that needs to be done is for Palestinians to be given the same rights and privileges as their Israeli counterparts in exchange for their giving up on their national identity and becoming a part of a multicultural society. Such a move could effectively lead to the end of one of the longest conflicts in modern history.

The Extension of Russian Sanctions is Ill-advised

The Trump administration, through its UN ambassador, recently stated that the eruption of violence in eastern Ukraine was Russia’s fault and that as a result, sanctions are going to remain in place. This action is likely to be considered hostile by Russia especially considering that the crisis in Ukraine can be blamed on both sides of the conflict. Since the election of President Trump, a considerable amount of optimist has developed in Russia that its government is going to work well with the United States to ensure that some of the most critical issues that are of common interest are addressed. The beginning of such a relationship was to be promoted by a lifting of sanctions, leading to the normalization of relations. However, this hope has receded slightly because of the American decision to extend sanctions.

The sanctions regime against Russia fails to put into consideration that it was the Obama administration, rather than Russia, which started the Ukraine crisis. It was American agents, under the direction of undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland, that instigated and facilitated the so-called Maidan Revolution that led to the overthrow of a legitimately and democratically elected president. Ukraine was not an
d has never been a part of what can be considered the traditional American sphere of influence. Instead, it has consistently been a part of the Russian world. Ukraine, specifically the city of Kyiv, is considered the cradle of the Russian civilization and both Russia and Ukraine consider themselves to be descended from Kievan Rus. The close linguistic and familial ties that many Russians and Ukrainians share cannot be underestimated, and this is the reason why the crisis in Ukraine is so tragic.

Ukraine has a long history of being under Russian dominance and there was a time when most of its eastern parts were known Novorossiya, or New Russia. Its close ties to Russia cannot be denied and it is in Russia’s interests to ensure that it has friendly relations with Ukraine. This was the case until the crisis, encouraged by the Obama administration, took place. The Russian reaction to the revolution in Ukraine was highly restrained because even though its ally and democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown and a nationalist government put in his place, Russia did not undertake a full-scale invasion. Russia, instead, undertook two measured actions; the return of Crimea without bloodshed, and the provision of support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine. If, for example, a similar circumstance as the Maidan Revolution had taken place in Mexico with the active support of Russia, the United States would have acted to ensure that Russian influence was pushed back because it would have been considered a threat to its nationalsecurity. The fact that there is indeed a rebellion in eastern Ukraine shows that the Maidan Revolution did not have the support of the entire Ukrainian population. Instead, the revolution brought about a situation where the country ended up being dominated by a government filled by nationalist elements that leaned towards fascism. In addition, if it were truly a genuine government, it would have sought to implement the Minsk Agreements by giving the eastern Ukrainian oblasts the autonomy that it had promised; allowing for their participation in the national elections. Currently, the government in Kyiv is dominated by western Ukrainian nationalists that are hostile to any attempts to end the civil war. The result is that it is in their interest to ensure that a conflict with Russian-backed rebels continues in order for them to have some claim to legitimacy. Therefore, it is wrong for the Trump administration to continue sanctions against Russia, which essentially remains an outside actor, because despite Russian support for the rebels, it is up to the Ukrainians themselves to get to the negotiations table and sort out their own problems.