Ukraine Has Not Yet Died.

 "This is not about the U.S. and Russia."
...
"From the U.S. point of view, our interest had been clear all along.  We want to see a de-escalation of violence.  We want to see constitutional change.  We want to see democratic elections...The United States is on the side of the Ukrainian people."
...
On a Russian invasion:"That would be a grave mistake.  It's not in the interests of Ukrainian (sic) or of Russia or of Europe or the United States to see the country split."-U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice, February 23.

"I also spoke several days ago with President Putin, and my administration has been in daily communication with Russian officials, and we've made clear that they can be part of an international community’s effort to support the stability and success of a united Ukraine going forward, which is not only in the interest of the people of Ukraine and the international community, but also in Russia’s interest."
...
"[T]he United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."-President Barack Obama, February 28.

"Russia and the West both have legitimate interests in Ukraine and its future."-The New York Times Editorial Board, February 28.

Russia has now invaded. Rice, Obama and the Times therefore have been proved wrong that "both" the U.S. and Russia have an interest against Russian invasion.

The only U.S. interest in Ukraine is contained in Ambassador Rice's second quoted statement above. "Interest"  is so vague, so broad that it provides no guidance to action. Nor, for the same reason, is it sufficient. Even Rice's very specific "democratic elections" is not sufficient. It was not sufficient for President Franklin Roosevelt--or the West--during Adolph Hitler's electoral ascent to power in Germany; it was not sufficient for President Barack Obama in Mohammad Morsi's electoral ascent to power in Egypt

The United States is not contemplating any military action, even indirect, against Russia for it's military seizure of Ukrainian Crimea. Therefore, for the U.S. National Security Adviser, the President of the United States, even The New York Times, to state, or imply by virtue of the positions they hold, that the consideration for U.S. action here is U.S. "interest" is dangerous and wrong. The touchstone for the American National Security Adviser to say that another country's action would be a "grave mistake" is when American national security, not interest, would be threatened. Coming from the National Security Adviser, "grave mistake" strongly implies military action.

United States national security is not threatened by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Therefore, American military action is not being considered. The rhetoric at this level should match, not exceed the stakes. Russian interest in Ukraine is deeper in almost every way than is America's.

On an issue with some similarities to that with Ukraine, I have been proved wrong myself previously. I was proved wrong in believing, truly believing, that Susan Rice, Barack Obama, The New York Times, official and semi-official America, wanted what Rice said above on Ukraine for the people of Egypt. I believe that those aforementioned want what Rice said they want for Ukraine. That interest, in a free, secure Ukraine, is the only interest America has which exceeds Russia's interest. This hideous action by Russia is in keeping with what most of America, official and unofficial, thinks of Russia. I believe that Obama is right that there should be costs to Russia for this outrage, and that those costs should be imposed by the U.S. working with the international community.

I am Benjamin Harris and this is Public Occurrences.