Simple Reasons for War in Ukraine

 Reasons for the war in Ukraine are simple; dueling narratives about Ukraine and its history conflict. To Russia, the west took the Ukraine and made it independent as a proplit cherry in 1994 when Russia was weak and emerging from decades under Soviet rule.  Before communism the Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries. At the end of communism Russians wanted to take back Ukraine. Russian proletarian/peons were informed from Olympian heights of the new world order designed by President Clinton perhaps with help from P.M. Major and Boris Yeltsin or alternatively, blind random chance. Leader Yeltsin wrote a new Russian constitution then died not too long after giving up Ukraine somewhat imperiously without consent of a Russian legislature that needed to be created.

 For EU, N.A.T.O. the Von Biden faction and bureaucrats, Russia is a foreign aggressor trying to reestablish turf of the former Soviet Union. They say Ukraine was stolt fair and square. In other words the land acquisition to the EU is fair dinkem. The narrative is wrong though politically convenient since western bureaucracies like others tend to defend wrong institutional decisions of the past until they are no longer defensible. In this post I want to point out developments leading to a possible second nuclear war (the United States waged the first 77 years ago on Japan) on a scale like that of the first nuclear war.

 Unfortunately, unlike Procopius writing the secret history of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian and his career whore wife Empress Theodora, I don’t have an insider perspective of U. S. leadership of this era. For instance, I will never know the truth about Bill Clinton’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein (who died while in prison) and British royals concerning procurement of young women. Perhaps that matter is trivial data in comparison to contemporary affairs of war, yet Procopius knew of such matters concerning Theodora from a view court-side. She is said to have had sex with 50,000 men, possibly setting an all-time record. Inside historians have some advantages.

 Britain is an old imperialist, former colonialist power that has sought to find ways to recover some of its lost power through other means since the 1960s. Using American military and compliant administration leaders to accomplish its goals is de rigeur for EU and British objectives to make Ukraine part of the EU. They even invoke NATO leadership and power to intervene in conflict in a non-NATO or EU nation (though Europe has just taken steps to make Ukraine part of the European Union). Occasionally British and American interests coincide on international affairs and conflicts. In the Ukraine conflict the American interest should be in supporting a revision of the 1994 decision so Russia has control of the east bank of the Dnepr, war is ended and sanctions on Russia ended in return for a real peace.

 The United States should be wary of building up to strong of an EU. By no means is it assured that the EU will not be a military foe of the United States sometime in the future. World War Two had European powers as the primary enemy, along with Japan. Japan is probably more reliably a U.S. ally in the future than Europe- that is a matter of national character of the people. A strong Japan and Korea working together with the United States is a strong military power for the far East to offset Chinese power. Yet alienating Russia in the long term is a definite subversion of U.S. military and economic interests. Europe may choose to work with a diminished Russia as they prefer through back channels and overtly, yet Russia would remain on America’s nunca list until Vladimir Putin is gone and a DC sycophant accepts everything the Democrat party wants for Russia.

 Russia as a strong independent power working well with the United States in economics would balance Chinese tendencies for Asian hegemony and comprise a barrier to European aggression against the United States or Latin America and Chinese as well. The United States cut off from Russia completely and at odds with the Chinese while the EU is very strong, expanded and in control of N.A.T.O. significantly diminishes the position of the United States in the world militarily and economically; it’s is just one of the girls under the power of global elite plutocrats. Russian leadership may not choose to be backed into a corner in a manner of speaking with loss of access to warm water ports, a diminished military and reliance on China as a support prop against regime change and further European-American expansion eastward.

 Kievan leadership plans on negotiating in October with Russia. Apparently, they fell that more weapons from the United States and NATO members will allow western forces to move Eastward and push the Russians away from the Dnepr and maybe even Crimea. That idealistic viewpoint has support from the British PM and N.A.T.O. leader Stolenberg. Evidently Russia is expected to expend its military weapons and attrition of soldiers to the point they will want to quit the struggle to keep some of its traditional ownership of Ukraine and Crimea. At that point they will negotiate a peace and Russia will live without Black Sea access or river access from Moscow to the Dnepr and warm water points south. In my opinion the west is overlooking an important point.

 Russia may use tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons as a last resort to hold its Ukrainian positions. If Kiev were hit with two or three tactical nuclear devices that would probably end the war without bringing British nuclear attack, or that of France, and the United States would probably not risk unlimited nuclear exchange with Russia either. As the United States ended the war with Japan by nuking two cities in order to save the lives of U.S. soldiers, Russian leader may select destroying Kievian resistance and leadership by vaporizing it.

 Russia is already experiencing sanctions that could hardly be increased after destroying Kiev. Europeans probably would not want to risk further increase of nuclear war to the west and likely would support an end to the war. The only difference between a settlement before the nuclear termination of the conflict (unless President Biden chooses to escalate and nuke Moscow for spite to show that Democrats can force anything their way) would be the non-existence of Kiev.

 Kiev could be rebuilt in twenty or fifty years- like Chernobyl perhaps.  It is probable that proud elites can also be the stupid. Reiterated use-truths/narratives concerning the reasons for the conflict and Russian ‘aggression’ are intoxicating to people trying to be righteous without being so. Nuclear war is a disaster obviously, yet Harry Truman chose to use it in a comparable circumstance that Vladimir Putin finds himself in. Perhaps Mr. Putin’s situation is even worse.

 President George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, warned against making permanent foreign relationships and the present circumstance is bearing that out. A strong, independent United States would be far more adaptable and able to form ad hoc international relations balances than the present one. The United States is entirely to entangled with Europe and it’s paranoid, self-serving fictitious narrative about Russia.

 President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister John Major wrested Ukraine away from the re-emerging Russian nation with the help of the old alcoholic, last President of the Soviet Union Boris Yeltsin, who was an important transitional figure in a very difficult situation. PM Major was selected to be President 41 Bush’s junior partner and was just a high school graduate, while President Bill Clinton was an Oxford educated anglophile without good sense concerning Russian history or how it would never give up Ukraine or the Crimea without a fight down the road to retake it if lost. Betting the security of the United States to force a policy of indirect war on Russia in order to expand the EU’s power and wealth seems counterproductive to U.S. interests. In football training one is sometimes encouraged to give 110% or to tackle through the center of mass of the opponent. In politics one should seek after the best possible outcomes or formations; to be a Utopian, even knowing that human character and ignorance inevitably will generate dystopian paradigms. If one does not make the effort to create optimal conditions it isn’t likely they will emerge through blind chance.