Britain and the United States have led the efforts to bring
a renaissance of Cold War to the post-Cold War era with some measured success.
It is now possible to envision a nuclear conflict some time ahead even if the
odds of war are low. What diplomacy has made the prospects brighter for nuclear
war?
For the answer to that question we must consider the distant
past in the immediate post-Cold War environment and even the critical
transition period to the new era of peace. President Reagan’s effort to end the
Cold War coincided with changes in the Soviet world view simultaneously with
economic hardships the Soviet Empire experienced in competition with the
western economy. Yet there were complex and subtler reasons for the Soviet
Union to end the Cold War and transition to the free market system that
presently has to a certain extent excluded the New Russia from the global free
market system to the best of its capacity.
Russia had to feed its vast Muslim population in arid Muslim
majority districts within the Soviet Union. The Afghanistan War proved that
Muslim resistance to a godless atheist’s communist system in defense of its
religious ideals would be strong and present a potential internal problem for
the Soviet Union. Islam was a dagger embedded near the heart of the Soviet
Union that would try to twist its way to the heart and kill it over time.
Ending the Soviet Union allowed Russia to rid itself of the Muslim problems
including food redistribution and security. Reducing the threat of nuclear
conflict was also an incentive. In fact a reduced scale, leaner, meaner Russia
with a free market system stood ahead as a better way to enter the challenges
of the new Millennium yet obviously the west did not allow it to work out that
way.
The west and its one percenters viewed the new Russia as
something to be preyed upon; the strong take advantage of weakness. To the
victor go the spoils. President Clinton moved Russia to give up many of its
nuclear weapons with leverage. The NATO attack on Serbia demonstrated the
powerless condition of Russia to disagree with the west on military affairs in
the aftermath of the breakup of Soviet command and control structures. Boris
Yeltsin gave up the Ukraine in ending the Soviet Union on a signature. He
formed C.I.S. He gave up as much of the former Soviet States including those
that were historically part of Russia as he possibly could. Fear and pragmatism
were perhaps factors. NATO was dominant and Anglo-American leadership tended to
regard it as their right to dominate the post-Soviet Russia real estate.
President Bill Clinton was an agent for Anglo-American hegemony over post-Cold
War Russia. Not only did he place President Yeltsin on the White House law
running about stone drunk in his underpants, he deregulated Wall Street and
unleashed the Wall Street one percent lust for rapid acquisitions, takeover and
economic growth that would enrich the one-percent that eventually resulted in
the global derivatives crash and the exporting of millions of U.S. jobs to
China and elsewhere, NAFTA and so forth. None at the time realized the extrema
and collateral nature of the one percent front. It was an invisible elephant
most did not anticipate arising from wonderland. Yet it did.
At that point Russia was doomed as far as economic equality
went with the west. Americans largely forgot the Russia nuclear arsenal and
didn't worry about it during the prosperity of the 1990s and even after 9-11.
Russia was tame and could be contained and sanctioned into submission as was
needed if it did not elect a cooperative President willing to let the one
percent economically rape Russia and its land. Unfortunately for the one
percent, President Yeltsin hand-picked a strong successor. President Vladimir Putin, who choose to
rebuild Russia with such tools as he had available in large, rich nation with a
small yet scientifically educated population. Russia retained its nuclear and
chemical weapons, even upgrading them, and participated in the global economy
so far as the one percent did not put off limits with sanctions.
The United States media became a mouthpiece for the one
percent and the government leadership became sycophants of one percent policy.
The Supreme Court ruled by decree and forced homosexual marriage upon the
nation with the full support of the one percent. As a result, not only must
Russia elect a President who would cooperate with rape of its vast natural
resources, it must also satisfy the homosexual and feminist as well as new
anti-Christian evolutionary populist elements of the west that hate Russia for
not dittoing those new political positions evolved in England and pulled over
the United States as a sort of Knighthood States of Queendom in drag broadcast
tailored to youth, if Russia wants to be accepted as a full and spineless
jellyfish member in good standing in the free market democracies of the west.
Diplomacy could easily have prevented a return to something
like a renewed Cold War, yet diplomacy can only represent the real interests of
nations unless it is intended to deceive, so interestingly diplomacy was doomed
to fail concurrent with the rise of too big to fail financial institutions,
zero-interest loans to the one percenters from the U.S. Federal Reserve and the
transition of the Democratic political party to being a leader for left-wing
corporatism drawing the feminist, homosexual, non-white groups into an atheist
anti-Christian coalition pursuing interests politically other than broad
economic class based politics. Vast tax cuts were affirmed by a Democratic
Congressional minority and President Obama who needed only to let them expire
to receive a complete tabula rasa for negotiating custom tax cuts benefiting
the poor and middle class rather than surrendering complete and total advantage
to the richest. President Putin finds himself in the unenviable position of
encountering the naked west that is not only not a good and respectful neighbor
that loves Russia as itself, it faces a British led evolutionary Plutocratic
supremacy that would conquer the world in something of an economic over-reach.
So it is thus useful to consider the disregarded prospects for nuclear War
between Russia and the west should Russian leadership tire of the incessant
attack and sanctions used as economic leverage tools routinely.
The poisoning of a Russia double agent from military
intelligence; a traitor worthy of the death penalty under Russian law, with
some sort of military nerve agent; perhaps GA, GB or VX, may have had a more
subtle message embedded within. It may have been a warning shot over the bow of
Anglo-American hegemony letting them now that the use of weapons of mass
destruction on London is not unthinkable given the perpetual Anglo-American
abuse of Russia economically and in the media.
That brings me to the consideration of war between Russia
and England. In September 1988 I was completing Nuclear, Biological, and
Chemical School in a U.S. Army school before returning home to Fairbanks
Alaska. One happy experience at school was flying about in a helicopter
practicing searching for nuclear fallout. We learned something about wind drift
and radiometers, alpha, beta and gamma radiation characteristic and so forth. I
had personally hoped that war would not occur and worked to understand the
potential enemy with Russian history courses. Ending the Cold War was my goal
in military service so I am disappointed that the creature has returned and
American leadership is so much the reason (under British influence of course).
Ending serious conflicts is a two way affair; in wars generally both parties believe
they are right. One utilizes self-defense while another attacks. In my opinion
Russia has the interior lines in the present pre-war situation and the west the
exterior. One could perhaps find consonance in Clausewitz and Sun Tzu for that
viewpoint, yet the western media propaganda of course paints it the other way;
that Russia is trying to reestablish the territories of the former Soviet Union
that it got only after rolling up the Nazi forces that invaded those nations
and properties during the second world war along the Eastern front.
In 1989 after the Exxon Valdez oil spill I took some
creative writing courses and science fiction etc. at the University of
Alaska-Fairbanks. I mailed a science fiction story all over the place trying to
sell it, including to a woman’s magazine in Moscow. Later I went on active duty
in September 1989 and attended the Army stinger shoulder-fired rocket school.
Late in the year, the day I was to get a security clearance, a Sergeant handed
me a rejection letter from the woman’s magazine in Moscow rejecting my story
with the information that it was too violent; the ending of the story had
skyrockets being fired over Coney Island. In my opinion the Russian verdict was
too harsh. A month or two later the Soviet Army troops withdrew hundreds of
thousands of soldiers from East Germany to Russia. The Cold War was over; now
it is back.
So in my opinion regarding the course of a potential hot war
with Russia, this is it. Russia would use cruise missiles and ICBMs to take out
a hundred U.S. cities and 15 European, and maybe Shanghai, Beijing and Mecca,
while the U.S.A. would end yet would launch nuclear weapons on ten Russian
cities effectively ending Russia yet not quite starting the dreaded nuclear
winter in full. It would be a milder nuclear winter of shorter duration. World
population would decrease to four billion more or less through starvation and
economic collapse. The world would continue without the U.S.A. or Russia,
England or France and Germany, Poland and China, yet people would survive from
all those nations and the one percent would not arise for quite a while.
It is remarkable the way society repeats its own historical
mistakes and walks blindly into its own traps.
In the day I enjoyed reading world history. I got a score of
99% on CLEP General Social Science and History exams and the Civilization to
1648. I sought to read of every continent, to find something I was entirely
unfamiliar with and so I read Russian history too. Needless to say the
political and leadership elites of the west usually are ignorant of anything
except the history of western Europe or the United States although that has
expanded to include some Oriental, Latin American and African history these
days in a minor sort of way. In some respects Russia and Vlad Putin who will
probably be in office another six years before hand-picking a strong successor,
is required to be the sane player strait man to the wise-guys of the one
percent howling at the gates. It’s a tough place to be with Russia having a
history of invasion after invasion from the east, west and south. The
one-percenters are insatiably greedy and U.S. democracy has been reduced to a
condition roughly equivalent to that of the Iranian Majlis working the will of
elites. It is a democracy just symbolically and all policy must follow that of
the corporatists and their media eventually or be marginalized. Such a state of
affair is of course dysfunctional.
The United States has two primary Holy texts and a third new
one comparatively. They are the US. Constitution, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Charles
Darwin's On the Origin of Species.
The Bible formerly shared the Holy text role with the Constitution yet it has
been demoted by Harvard elites, scientists and leftist-atheists. Notably though
two of three primary Holy texts are more than two centuries old and the third
is nearly so. Without reform of the economic text parameters and the
constitution to recognize reality the third text serves as the anything goes
guideline for the one percenters having everything their way, and that isn't
good. It is worth remembering that those who fought the ideological battle with
the former Soviet Union and its communist system fought again atheism as Christians-even
forming an ad hoc alliance with Muslims. They also defended free enterprise and
political self-determination. Those are values no longer supported by the
western elites in preference for globalism, atheism and corporatism.
The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote in a book
titled The Concept of Irony, about the incompleteness regarding world-view that
society inevitably possesses. It is a kind of Godelian Incompleteness Theorem
for macro—economic and social politics. People commonly misunderstand the way
things work and in working for self-interest too narrowly work against the
actual interests of society. One learns that Kierkegaard modeled himself after
Socrates as best he could in attempting to bring society to better understand
its own rationale and circumstance. The west in regarding Russia as an enemy
for convenience while in a superior power relation endangers its own existence
needlessly. That is the present irony and illustration of Kierkegaard's Concept
of Irony.
Russia has always had a strong leader. It has virtually
never had democracy. It is therefore unreasonable to expect Russia to perfectly
evolve a democracy after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. It is
especially unreasonable in an atmosphere where external threats from the West
and Islam challenge Russia’s development.
Russia’s masses were serfs until 1867. After that they had
little effect on voting and selection of the leadership that was still royal
with a Tsar and Aristocrats and a social table of ranks. There were many
Russians that sought to revolt against the Russian government. One was Lenin’s
brother who was executed by the Tsar. That stimulated V.I. Lenin to evolve from
law school to revolutionary. Americans should realize that in human history and
especially Europe societies overthrew their oppressive royal leadership and
established democracy only rarely and at great cost. In 16th century Holland’s
people were dying of starvation as the royals lived the high life through the
winter. In fact Europe was great at war and war technology and incessantly
fought other nations and often invaded Russia to occupy, plunder and withdraw.
Wars in Europe stopped only because there was no way for them to go further;
Russia and the United States were victors, each had nuclear weapons and Britain
had lost its empire. Yet with the Serbian conflict Europe demonstrated that it
has not lost the taste for blood if it is opportune.
The Russian revolution that occurred within the collapse of
the former Soviet Union brought forth a political phenomenon never before
experienced; a complete political change in a great nation without bloodshed.
Russia was challenged to create a new social structure, political economy and
order starting from scratch. That was a challenge that easily might have
required a half century to accomplish. Today and for some time there are
critics that expect a perfect democracy to naturally arise and perhaps that the
private sector with a little government support would assure that no Russian
would starve or lack needed jobs and medical care etc. . . . Of course those
are and were entirely unreal expectations.
I believe the Italian Dictator Mussolini-had a PhD He wasn't
dumb and invented the political economic system known as corporatism.
Fundamentally the corporate sector and government sector work together as such
as during the 2008 U.S. banking and financial crash. Corporate leaders such as
Henry Paulson moved from Goldman Sachs to Government to design corporate
bailouts. The Federal Reserve issued trillions of dollars of zero-interest
loans. The economist Jeff Sachs worked with Russia to reform its economy with only
partial success. To a large extent the U.S.A. has moved away from its
revolutionary origin with egalitarianism that removed concentrated British
aristocratic wealth and power to Mussolini’s system of corporatism. Since the
exemplary democracy of the United States is abandoning democracy for
corporatism what should one expect of Russia? Should it evolve a democracy with
a minimum income for the poor and free walk-in medical care for citizens, or
should it more likely evolve a form of corporatism with strong leaders first
over corporations that may have plundered the industrial carcass of the former
communist state enterprises before drawing people to work for strong nationalistic
corporations?
Personally I don't like corporatism. It is owned by one
percenters that prevent any business or tax policy that removes power or
control from the extreme minority. Business can make hostile takeovers, nations
should not. Fundamentally corporatism is a drag on human social, intellectual
and economic development though some progress continues even so. It would have
been better for the west, and still would, to respect Russia’s real historical
boundaries and interests and work with it carefully and tolerantly (the tall or
powerful must tolerate) and with patience over the next half century.
Constructive engagement is probably better than war.
