Reigniting the Cold War and dividing the world economy roughly in half (the U.S. administration claims the G-7 comprise 50% of the world economy today) between those that side with Europe and the U.S. more than Russia and China in order to isolate and punish Russia for taking over the Ukraine militarily may be a strategic blunder. Though the corporate broadcast left and social media seem to believe political dissent from their narratives necessarily are treason and should be repressed, I shall venture my own opinion about the consequences of the corporate left policy of the United States in regard to Russia and Ukraine. The founders at least believed political pluralism was fine and citizens need not be sycophants of the will of concentrated wealth and power.
Bringing the super-rich to try to own Russia may have been an inevitable, unsaid yet implicit aim of Democrat leaders when the Soviets peacefully withdrew from eastern Europe. Taking advantage of the weak is a traditional capitalist path to wealth. Seizing Ukraine from a weak Boris Yeltsin while the former Soviet Union was in disarray set the grounds for the present conflict. I am at a loss to understand how the U.S.A. and Britain had any legal standing in 1994 to participate in agreement with President Yeltsin to give away Ukraine to someone other than Russia. Were Britain and President Clinton at war with the Soviet Union or Russia and President Yeltsin just a signer of a surrender document? Was President Clinton the actual winner of the Cold War? Did President Yeltsin have a legal power to give away Ukraine in Soviet or C.I.S. law that precluded a need to ask Russians if that’s what they wanted?he principle of ‘We stolt it fair and square’? Maybe democratic liberty of Ukraine is a kind of ex post facto way to firm up the democratic kosherness of the deal; the art of the deal is important.
Democrat party leaders hatred of Russia and prosecution of the Russian collusion narrative with President Trump (that was entirely false evidently) served to heighten tension with Russia and create the atmosphere that brought the Ukraine crisis to fruition. Democrats formally ending the Reagan-Gorbachev peace dividend era brings a new decade or two of intrigue, strife, increased defense spending and maybe inflation to Russian-American relations. European eastward expansion into Russia required conflict, a crucible and regime change with supporting narratives if global plutocracy goals to rule the entire world were to be fulfilled. All the worlds a bank, and the people merely pawns mixing metaphors strutting about during their hour, working for wages and the rich, signifying nothing as objects of broadcast media viewpoints. Opposition is be evolved away...
The United States and Europe have aging populations and allow in second and third world migrant replacement populations to provide cheap labor no longer available from domestic sources. The new browner U.S. population may not have the same political goals as plutocrats or share their vision of world conquest through concentrating wealth to enfeof the rich as ad hoc aristocrats.
China has a somewhat younger population with rapid economic and military growth prospects. Bringing them closer to Russia and Russian military and natural resources will greatly enhance the power of the competing Eastern economic block that is no longer simply communist. The United States may have bitten off its nose to spite its face blinded by greed to expand N.A.T.O. eastward. U.S. leaders may have prompted evolutionary forces to find alternative planetary channels for anti-American forces to conduct business in.
The U.S. administration failed to get Mongolia to join its alliance of all traditional enemies of Russia to line up against it including a rearming Germany. Getting the former NAZI power to rearm $110 billion worth is a great achievement of the Biden administration sure to benefit the U.S.A. in the long run. Maybe Germany can development nuclear capability to increase the scale of total nuclear war reassuring to N.A.T.O. members.
Anyone who inherits a shoe or .50 cents is an heir with a lower case h. No one should expect the poor to stupidly throw away whatever they are lucky enough to inherit. Instead they inherit, invest or use whatever they have and move on to work howsoever they can to upgrade their situation. The poor can’t live on interest, dividends and lies. Heirs with a capital H are people that inherit wealth- maybe more than a half a million dollars, or several million dollars, in modern American terms. They can afford to live on interest and dividends and some can seek to take over corporations and make acquisitions globally, even in a small way. The media sometimes support the rich and victimize the poor, even using the poor as political decoys for the rich, and if they deem it politically useful, to pretend the poor are Heirs. What would happen to the financial fortunes of Heirs that publicly supported Russia as stakeholders in Ukraine?
Political inheritance is also a thing almost everyone gets; when Democrats muck it up they lower the value to all. War is not as good as peace. Rational political settlements are better than conflicts. One needs to understand the opposition viewpoint to make rational negotiated settlements. One cannot have just an our way or no way attitude and expect a negotiated settlement. Democrats consistently have acted as a one-party and no other in Democracy way this millennium whenever they could. Presently they have been trying to get rid of the filibuster rule in the Senate, and that would eventually be useful for one-party rule too.
Europe and the U.S.A. plainly don’t need more and better weapons rather than ecological economic reform to reverse global warming. U.S. administrators have deep faith in wealth and the power of Wall Street bankers, politicians and media to define their own narratives and impose their will upon poor, isolated nations like Russia, and it may be so if wealth is their god.
Russian and Chinese nuclear capabilities combined are equal to or greater than those of the United States. It is possible that North Korean nuclear and economic capabilities will develop faster in alliance with the newly strengthened eastern block with good long term growth prospects. Iranian nuclear development may quicken with Russian technical support should they choose to provide that. It is possible alternatively, that a quick Russian defeat to Ukrainian forces supplied with N.A.T.O. arms will bring a Russian withdrawal on weak terms to a nation nearly broke as a result of devastating Western sanctions crippling the Russian economy. Then China would be the final holdout to global domination by Wall Street as global investors flow into a post-Putin Russia to make the economy sufficiently queer and corporatist to satisfy the Plutocracy of Earth.
If President Putin acts creatively and does the unexpected; perhaps establishing an independent Western Ukraine while keeping the east bank of the Dnepr for Russia, he may discombobulate U.S. leadership that has been loading up on anti-Putin and anti-Russian narratives in support of the New Cold War. President Putin may find the costs of keeping all of the Ukraine high while westerners fund protracted insurrection in occupied Ukraine and supply a host of advanced weapons to keep casualties and terror rolling.
In the several days that have passed since the Russian invasion began the offense has stagnated at Kiev and the west has promised military support for Ukraine resistance forces. I have no idea what tactics President Putin had in mind yet the choice to waste time on Kiev is perplexing. Seemingly he just needed to halt at the Dnepr and secure the east bank while letting western Ukraine keep Kiev. It is doubtful that putting the Russian up opposite N.A.T.O. nations by taking west Ukraine was a good idea then or now. Keeping West Ukraine as a buffer probably was tactically better. The farmland of the east is an important breadbasket for Russia and getting farming going seasonally was important to restoring normal economics while West Ukraine licked its wounds before building up a N.A.T.O. Supplied military to consider an eventual counter-offensive.
One knows that modern urban warfare is difficult and usually results in creating a pile of rubble challenging to hold by either side; consider the battles of Stalingrad and Leningrad or as has been pointed out, Aleppo. Building up defensive positions in East Ukraine able to survive a counter-invasion might have been a better strategy. As it is, garrisoning troops able to suppress populist insurrection and guerrilla war, as Russians know, is challenging. They learned that in Afghanistan and though Europeans are Afghans they have much better equipment and technical prowess at the art of war. What President Putin’s plans are is a mystery, yet with R.T. news apparently censored from American viewers of the Internet (I haven’t checked yet being in a rural area without Internet access) one cannot learn what Russians think about it, as one could,listening to Tariq Aziz from Iraq right up to the American invasion based on a mistake about W.M.D.’s.
It should be possible to partition Ukraine along the natural Dnepr River and establish an easily recognizable international border. Free trade for each nation on the Dnepr along with demilitarization and low tax policies could catalyze a renaissance of trade and commerce, industrial and technical productivity for both nations after civilian populations return. Plainly two nations- East and West Ukraine, would comprise a partisan gerrymandering favorable to Russia and probably adequate to establish security for Russia against the specter of total war by traditional western enemies beginning with an advanced location on Russia’s southern flank with a N.A.T.O. knife poised on its soft underbelly. West Ukraine can be a demilitarized neutral zone of value to east and west. Russia could withdraw the bulk of its forces from the east after order is re-established.
It is possible that Europeans nations will gradually defect to the newer eastern block as economic opportunities and concern about nuclear war bring them a pragmatic preference to make friends rather than enemies of Russia and China. Russia may be able to launder exports and imports through China finding a surfeit of work-arounds without onerous terms. Nations like Vietnam or Brazil may choose to buy and sell to Russia; perhaps the U.S. won‘t want to put sanctions or penalties on many nations, especially those of Latin America, for violating the New Berlin Wall dividing Russia from the west.
It is challenging to say that all of the encrypted e-currencies like Bitcoin won’t facilitate Russian economic transactions or that Russians cannot mint their own block-chain currencies. With so many Muslim nations to their south Russians may have need not to look weak and easy prey as a stuffed west could appear after President Biden’s flight of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Because of the western leadership corruption creating homosexual marriage it is possible that Muslim nations may find it practical to align themselves with Russia rather than the United States as need arise, and that Russia will stop interdicting Muslim terrorists on their way west or even share intelligence on Asian terrorist organizations so long as they do not attack Russian interests. The U.S. may have great relations with rich, royal Muslims these days, yet the populist crowd of fundamentalists may choose not to go the American way, and work with Russia when it can, in spite of Chinese insults to its Muslim population.
China has been making economic gains in Latin America and Russia for some time, and it will benefit from Russian scientific and technical assistance that is now of a free market sort rather than communist. Instead of exporting communist revolution the Eastern Block will be exporting economic upgrades and material opportunity that many lack in under-developed regions of the world. Making friends rather than enemies with Russia probably was the better choice for the United States.
With full normal economic relations between Russia, Europe and the U.S. Chinese militarized might have been seriously dampened. As it is one hopes they don’t make a tactical blunder themselves in light of the add of Russia to their team generally, and decide to invade Taiwan or become intoxicated with a Chinese version of the Japanese Greater Co-Prosperity sphere and invade nations themselves drawing the world closer to actual nuclear war. Political patience and tolerance is hard to use sometimes, yet in the newly divided economic world China would seem to have everything to gain as the world’s middleman and economic power center.
A President probably should not work international politics in such a way that the threat of nuclear war increases or that the nation is put in a place of potential economic harm itself compelling world nations to choose between the U.S.A. and its economic block or everyone else including Russia. Progressive strategic degradation of the U.S. position instead of increasing security and economic and environmental well-being is wrong. Democrats are bent on an our way or no way, better dead than red (Republican) course. Americans will need to wait to see what Republicans can accomplish to normalize global economic relations after Democrat Party Russia haters are voted out of office eventually.
Republicans may no longer be a good answer to challenges presented in the modern world to international relations- who can say? Public opinion still matters though, at least to planners manipulating public opinion in order to benefit elites. So what if world public opinion shifts to regard the U.S.A. employing politician lawyers with killer drones happy enough to splatter foreigners or get them to kill one another in protracted, yet avoidable conflicts- that can’t be good for business. Sometimes one must have a creative intellect gene to find peaceful solutions to global challenges. Bureaucratic minions hate that.
Democrats apparently may seek to build support a long-term insurgency in Europe’s Ukraine region to resist Russia's reconquista. Yet one may ask; is creating a protracted guerrilla war in Europe a good idea or an optimal way to stabilize the troubled region? Is construction of proxy war inducting Ukrainian and Russian casualties an intelligent plan?
Can’t politicians think of an intelligent way to return the Ukraine to a fully normalized economic and social condition ending sanctions on Russia- bringing them into E.U. close-quarters trade and N.A.T.O. cooperation while demilitarizing Ukraine? Should Russia allow a Ukrainian, militarized N.A.T.O. threatening it more menacingly than than the WW 2 Nazis of Germany? It is possible that real living conditions for Ukrainians could be much the same as before the conflict under Russian suzerainty if Russia were economically integrated with Europe.
It could be that incompetent American leadership is suitable for a plutocratic shadow government politicians owe allegiance to. Wall Street aristocrats are globally positioned. In fact down-sizing U.S. political power may actually benefit the plutocracy and grease a more efficient planetary approach to consolidating wealth. The U.S.A. has moved more toward establishing an Orwellian division of vaguely warring empires almost somnambulist, automatically.
Pejorative American narratives will continue to increase as minions line up behind bureaucratic story lines. A dirth of intelligent creative problem solving will descend like a fog of ignorance enshrouding knuckle-heads in pursuit of lucre. President Putin will become the new Napoleon ending democracy by taxing the rich 55% and forcing the lampshade of authoritarianism over the masses with green economic reform even as heroes of D.C. prepare a House of Special Purpose on the island of St. Helena where they can exile Von Putin after Wellington blades capture the fugitive and flush him far down the South Atlantic while a new generation of Ukrainian resistance hero amputees provide interviews to media and entertainment news with footage of new horrors of war alternating with news of Democrat Party replacement politics moving conveyor belts of social progress ahead and stock reports indicate Wall Street is patching 40,000 and public debt scooping 40 trillion.
