President Obama Considers Throwing Petrol Onto Ukrainian Civil Conflict

President Obama is considering adding the accelerent of weapons donations to expedite development of the Ukrainian civil war. If the Obama administration were to provide lethal military weapons to the Poroshenko regime the prospects for increasing bloody conflict would be enhance and up-speech broadcasters could sound optimistic about the tempo of doom.

Russia has had a war water Black Sea port for hundreds of years and the Dnepr River is an important waterway-like the Mississippi is to the U.S.A.-reaching into central Russia. To sanction and deny Russia at least shared control of its most vital southern seaport and river is a policy that is likely to cause enmity for generations if Washington insiders are importunate enough to pursue that senseless policy. If a Dnepr River and seaport sharing agreement were reached between Ukraine and Russia without Obama weapons saturation to create a generation of injury and death in the Ukraine it is likely that Russian-western political and economic free enterprise could develop in Ukraine to a point where the wickedness of conflict would fade away.

In the 1977 I journeyed along the Nicaraguan coast listening to the revolutionary radio broadcasts and transited through the Panama Canal. I supported returning the Canal zone to Panamanians so they could have control of their own economic future. I wrote a letter to the White House in support of that point of view after walking around Panama City. President Obama today is taking an opposite, colonialist view toward the Russian Dnepr River and Black Sea Coast. Just because Democrats are swollen with high tech weapons and Federal Reserve printing press issues of money it should not make them drunk with power and will to snatch and grab everyone’s possessions. Local people have a right to share in control of their important natural economic resources (though not to the point of destroying the ecospheric health). President Obama should take a more Carter-like view and recognize that Russians too are the local people and end rather than increase conflict in Ukraine with acknowledgement of Russian right to share the Dnepr River’s banks.

I Sam 16:6.‘The Lord looketh upon the heart.’

“Men judge the heart by the actions, God judges the actions by the heart; if the heart be sincere, God will see the faith and bear with the failing. Asa had his blemishes, but his heart was right with God.”- Thomas Watson

President Ronald Reagan in his famous Berlin speech did not claim to be a jelly donut; Ronald Reagan said; “President Gorbachev, tear down this wall”. The final president of the Soviet Union would trust the good natured Reagan’s smile implying America and the west would not plunder Russia if it dropped its defense shield and reorganized with freedom. State absolutism under corrupt communist elites had passed its time. Years later President Clinton-the first carpetbagging Democrat Party President seeking to plunder Russia, somehow induced President of C.I.S. ( Community of Independent States) Boris Yeltsin to give up the Ukraine . Perhaps one of Yeltsin’s drunken working vacations running around the White House grounds in underpants Washington D.C. brought Boris to sign off on anything. Nothing is known of C.I.A. or Clinton methods of exploiting Yeltsin’s alcoholism if that occurred. Nothing is known about the White House becoming an ad hoc Mustang Ranch except for the possible blue dress smoking gun.

The process of ending the cold war and giving the former Soviet Union an opportunity to accomplish the difficult honorable transition from one political system to another with honor and a minimum of bloodshed had a substantial element of grace to it. Grace furthered should have allowed Western interaction with Russia to develop a free market restrained from the errors of over-concentrated wealth and predatory capitalism that leads to networked corporatism.

The perennial human struggle against elite rulers of any sort to oppress the masses eventually reacts to new challenges. In former time Adam Smith and David Hume considered how individuals might be liberated economically and politically from oppressive organizational power for free trade. Capitalists in that era were of less stature than today; corporations did not yet exist nor of course did corporate networks of stock owners. Instead, aristocracy was the oppressive power. Later, fascism and communism became oppressive or adversarial powers. In the aftermath of the cold war capitalist networks totalizing global economic power are emerging as an oppressive dominant economic power. Would Tony Lama innovate vibram-sole non-ice skid cowboy boots if it were taken over by the Harvard Chop Chop Mega-Power Corporation?

The blood of human commerce and free enterprise works best as it flows freely through the arteries without the blockages and clotting of concentrated wealth. Democracy provides a structure akin to a defense against the leukemia of anarchy. Freedom for economic pluralism and the maximum degree of free enterprise and individualism rather than concentrated wealth and corporatism is the point democracy needs to defend.

Capital is simply wealth. Capital exists as healthy rivers and ecosystems as well as in public works, education systems and privately held or publicly traded corporations. Allowing individuals to have maximum liberty to create free enter-prizes through invention, discovery or emulation in an economic environment not determined by corporatist control of the entire economy should be an American priority instead of goose stepping figuratively speaking in march to the drum beat of Wall Street elites concentrating wealth and power through control of every aspect of the economy.

President Clinton filched the Ukraine-the heartland of the Rus as soon as possible after the end of the cold war when Russia was weak and without strong cohesive government, economy or defense. That was a land too far that would later naturally become a recovery target for the leadership of Russia. President Obama as a stuffed suit actualizing Wall Street desires for more land and weapons sales has worked to increase civil conflict in Ukraine in order to prevent a just apportionment and settlement of Ukrainian land expropriated from Russia by the power of the west. Presently in the news is the Obama contemplation of providing the fuel of weapons to the civil war fire in Ukraine.

The grace Ronald Reagan worked with to end the cold war glossed over the meaningful issue of pride that can humiliate a fallen power. To a certain extent pride in politics can shape the course of political behavior as well as pragmatic concerns. It may be that expecting Russians to give up the Ukraine to the west and eat the loss would require a second humiliation-a second loss, and that might be exacerbated if a new cold war is engineered by the Obama administration. There is no certainty that Russia would be willing or capable of trusting the west one more time after the west reneges on promise that made for an agreeable end of the first cold war. Because the Obama policy of restoring to cold war status American relations with Russia could work counter-productively to American security interests I wanted to point out that the way a new cold war ends might be different than the first.

It is the obdurate ignorance of Washington elite insiders that should not be misunderestimated driving land expansion policy too often. Organizational and institutional loyalty inertia of the historically illiterate reinforced with sycophantic broadcast media predators enables implementation of unjust foreign war development from D.C. President Obama allowed development of the Islamic State through a policy of promoting Syrian civil war and has allowed Boko Haram to carve out a territory in Nigeria. President Good Luck Jonathan has had the bad luck to experience bad Obama policies that have supported the real growth of Middle Eastern terror organization and proliferation of weapons from Libya and Iraqi arsenals. Ukraine too is suffering from the tender ministration of Obama doctrine of war-for-others with help from the Harvard-Wall Street-Washington D.C. axis of evil economic resource reallocation.