Nixon Overcame the Wall of China, Obama Builds a Wall in Ukraine

President Richard Nixon went to some creative distance to open up relations with Mao-era China. Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama have gone to some lengths to found a bad relationship with Russia harming of American tactical interests. Obama’s building of a political wall in the Ukraine is a very wrong turn. The positive benefits of good American and Europe-Russian relations are substantial and ought to be easy to bring about.

 The Ukraine has been Russia for a thousand years-it is the heartland of Russia with Kiev and Yaroslav being the origin in 975 a.d. Declaring a shyster snag and grab takeover of Ukraine during Russia’s transitional weakness to a post-Soviet state will not erase history and sentiment. The United States now is on the same side as first the Kaiser in extracting the Ukraine in a land for peace extortion (Clinton-Yeltsin), and that of Adolph Hitler in retaking the Ukraine for the German Fatherland. One should not underestimate U.S. political malpractice-Poland and the Ukraine look the same to those incompetents-they were just places cruelly invaded by Soviets of which all Russians are at heart, and what they really need is a Tsar who will ask for Wall Street to move in and give him a good pension as if he were British Royalty.

Though lawyer-Presidents tend to view things through a legal prism without a rational comprehension of non-legal historical and social issues, they may be plain stupid or not see the woods for the trees failing to build peace and prosperity internationally instead of enmity, debt, pollution and conflict.

http://www.amazon.com/Temporal-Currents-Garrison-Clifford-Gibson-ebook/dp/B00KSC1SKG free novel download

It seems plain that Democrat lawyer-Presidents have used sanctions and indirect conflicts the past two administrations with more than a million dead. That policy of building civil conflict in which U.S. military forces are only indirectly involved plainly is short-sighted and callous, immoral and cold. Libya is being fought over by al Qaeda friendly militias armed with the late Dictator’s weapons like junk yard dogs seeking to be top.

Egypt went through its time of troubles to remove the old military leader Hosni Mubarak who filled in after the Muslim Brotherhood machine gunned President Anwar Sadat at a parade, so they put the Muslim Brotherhood in power who then sought to terminate democracy in the constitution and a new, young military leader was needed to take power and declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. It is difficult to say that the Arab Spring was good for anyone in Egypt except journalists.

Syria has of course been the target for Muslim jihadists since the Obama administration encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood and others to revolt, The Obama administration for three years demanded that President Assad quit. A protracted and bloody civil war has developed with perhaps a quarter million casualties. Without public support for that revolution it would have been easily put down. In time the twittering masses might have evolved more democracy-the alternative being some sort of North Korean Neanderthals with nuclear weapons isolation.

Bill Clinton’s sanctions enforcement on Iraq let a million people perish as they bore the brunt rather than Saddam Hussein. Democrats felt no compassionate need to find a solution to problems with Iraq. Barrack Obama’s callous disregard for the effect upon Iraq of building up a mob of terrorists to attack Syria led to the formation of the Caliphate in Iraq and an uncertain future ahead. In 2015 U.S. forces and those of allies will leave Afghanistan with the likely rise of terrorist and Taliban influence. In the meantime the Obama administration is developing bad relations with Russia over the Ukraine it has deemed necessarily reallocated to global resource apposite Wall Street investing.

It is true that without the sophomoric legalistic concept of Ukrainian-Russian history the conflict in Ukraine could have never started. Recognizing that Ukraine is at least half Russian would have benefited U.S. and European tactical interests in several respects. A natural and peaceful regional Ukrainian-Russian balance would have evolved without necessary exclusion of the U.S. and Europe from participating commercial investing there and in Russia. One can consider President Reagan’s policy of constructive engagement that led to change in South Africa and the end of apartheid.

Harsh sanctions applied with sanctimoniousness are not necessarily best policy-especially if one is building on a platform of shyster land grabbing with the Kaiser and Adolph Hitler histories as legal precedents, and realize that with Russian Ukraine constructive engagement was a better policy than stimulating conflict. The Royal Dutch government though representing lots of nice blondes ought not to be so offended by the loss of life in a tragic fly-a-plane through a war zone accident of war that it is used by the Wall Street and Obama-Harvard axis of power as a tail wagging the dog rationale for ratcheting up investment in conflict, sanctions and war.

Russian people are not like the royal-led Dutch with an easy climate. Maybe 95% of Russians are descended from slaves/ serfs or a kind of feudal servant bound to the land living with the cold environment a lethal weapon half the year. Only through the grace of God did they rid themselves of the royalty and its table of ranks for civilians. Even so, after the revolution they were dominated by brutal dictators and treated again as slaves of the state wherein a piece of unauthorized bread in a pocket could get a 20 year sentence in the gulag of penal camps. Of course the Nazis invaded and seized the Ukraine and later when the fascist were gone and the Soviet Communist elites withered away Bill Clinton duped old Boris Yeltsin to sign away the Ukraine maybe for 24 dollars worth of trinkets. The ordinary people of Russia may want it back.

How can anyone in their right mind believe that Europe and the United States are not better off constructively engaged with Russia commercially and in a large number of issues of interests from environmental protection to space development and security issues than in developing caustic, my-way-or-the-highway sophomoric legalist enmity? Destabilizing Europe in the long run by removing the Ukraine from Russia presents a direct threat to Russian border security from the west. It also forms an implicit Russian need to develop covert measures to recover its lost land that will go on for the next century at least. There is no quick and only moderately dirty political or military way to erase Russia’s memory of Ukraine and drug it down top a new, more shrunken condition.

The opportunity costs to Europe and the United States for building a wall in the Ukraine instead of a peacefully cooperative shared land for Russia and the Ukrainians are substantial. Russia will need to look to China for loans and the Chinese probably will choose to invest in Russia and raise the rate of loans to the United States. A divided Russia and Europe will be far less powerful in comparison to China and India in the decades ahead. The future of the United States may be even more uncertain with China growing militarily and economically and our European allies weakened and also more reliant upon China trade and investment. Building a wall in the Ukraine between Europe and Russia is a significant strategic fork in the wrong direction for the United States, yet one that a litigation minded President is too happy to make.