War as Litigation through other Means

Writing a somewhat historically accurate account of the background to the war in Ukraine, or more specifically deeper historical background leading up to the conflict seems useful to me. I would rather be one guy with a true account while 99% of the government have it wrong if that were the case, then be in sycophantic agreement with a majority as a mindless minion of media/government/Wall Street/London Ukraine dibbery. With the reporting of post-modern liberalism stories; godless. queer leprechaun Sasquatch finally getting membership at the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Baseballs or whatever (hyperbole), it is useful to have a plain and simple perspective on the lineal championship contest for the age old battle to posess Ukraine. Radio reporting does allow a high percent of illogic to pass through unchecked. Evaluating verbal reports with formal logical and historical tools is not as easy as when reading written reports since radio verbiage flows on like water under a bridge and for most listeners without extensive taping archives, disappears like morning dew. People accurately recall about 30% of what they hear, said a language coach, if I remember correctly.

With the severance of Russian oil imports to the U.S.A. Cold War version 2.0 has officially commenced. That will bring on many changes and memories to veterans of Cold War 1.0 The United States spent a great deal of time, money and lives in the history of bringing the Cold War to an end. Yet there were many jobs created, many proxy wars fought in the chess game that is not a game. Sober people and the good luck of Ronald Reagan concluded the matter peacefully. Lawyers rather than realists have rekindled the conflict, and it may demand new jobs and new alignments. Clinton, Biden and Putin are/were lawyers litigating the theft of Ukraine from Russia to the west. Germany tried to wrest that plum from Russia for the better part of the 20th century.

President Clinton and the Brits administered the coup de grace in 1994 (too busy to be troubled by the genocide in Rwanda in that year) with a weak Yeltsin and Russia in disarray. The Soviets withdrew from Warsaw pact nations beginning in December 1988. President Reagan invited Russian participation in the free world economy and the sentiments of Russians and others behind the Iron Curtain responded with a modicum of trust; they evolved letting down their guard against N.A.T.O. and transitioned to a post-Soviet new world order. When Soviet Russian leadership released occupied Eastern European nations from custody fifty years after the war against NAZI Germany the west was restrained in violating that trust until President Clinton and British political leadership violated that trust in 1994 reversing the Russian reconquista of Ukraine in 1945 and in effect taking up where NAZI Germany left off. For Democrats law is about forcing rival parties and people to do what they don’t want to do. They call that democracy.

They should have known that a stronger Russia would one day litigate the matter through other means if necessary. Ukraine was stare decisis to the Anglo-American legal team though the matter was not res judicata. The strong N.A.T.O. position pulverizing Serbia might have brought President Yeltsin to sign some sort of relinquishing agreement with President Clinton like V.I. Lenin had signed with German Minister Molotov to get Germany to stop war on Russia. N.A.T.O. supremacy was seen as a tool for advancing the ‘Liberal World Order ‘ (pragmatically defined as an order for queer marriage, teaching of homosexuality to schoolkids, abortions, legal dope. concentrating wealth and no religion too). Probably there should have been a Russian plebiscite- an election, rather than British direction, concerning Russian freedom to choose what to do with Ukraine. The Anglo-American posture of 1994 bears a resemblance to that of Britain following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East in 1918 drawing up international borders with the French.

At the level of international, state vs. state legal disputes the ultima ratio; the logic of kings, is historically, war. Those leaders that appeal to law to decide international issues may refer to their sovereign internal authority. Brits and U.S. leaders recently have expressed the opinion that rule of law- their own authority, has ruled since 1945. In 1994 the Anglo-American legal team regarded themselves as the ultimate legal authority of the Earth. Obviously they dismiss Russian authority and law in regard to Ukraine, as one expects from partisan lawyers in corporate disputes who invariably say the opposition arguments have no merit. The western position relies upon their own perception of superior power rather than of an impartial, objective regard for history. Meaningful history for the western legal team for the present dispute only extends to 1994 and 1945, dismissing inconvenient affairs before and during those periods.

Interestingly Russian efforts to retake the Ukraine seem to occur at approximate thirty year intervals. The leveraged Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was followed approximately thirty years later by the German occupation of Ukraine with a proximal Russian reconquista toward the end of W.W. 2. The leveraged relinquishment of Ukraine to President Clinton and the British legal team was followed approximately thirty years later by the new Russian effort for reconquista of Ukraine. That reminds me somewhat of the time that elapsed following the Dred Scott decision or Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education. Correcting historical disputes isn’t always swift or final.

Cold Wars bring on economic changes; even new songs need to be written that are pro-war and of course de rigeur anti-war anthems. ”There’s no place I’d rather be, watching the world wake up from history.” Massachusetts could consider passing a law requiring school children grades 1-3 to take a knee beneath their desks in case of atomic attack. The C.D.C . may open an investigation into political decisions leading to the brink of nuclear war to determine if they are a danger to public health. T-shirts could be sold that say Remember 1994! and Viva Oxford!

While it may be too early for The Final Countdown version 2.0, or Alan Alda kinds of nuclear holocaust flicks, the time may be right for action-packed espionage films even though James Bond died in the last denouement. Cold War business start-ups may boom. I’ve wondered what could go into Cold War II espionage kits that could be sold on eBay for maybe $100, like maps to Russian forts, James Bond videos, disguises, miniature cameras and drones. The kit should have a useful phrasebook for spies with phrases like; ‘My llama is Boris, I live in Soyuz Square. I like see-through blouse Natasha. Zil is parked at Bolshoi. Where are nuclear triggers?

The total economic war of the west ion Russia presents the ironic western policy of forcing Russia to nationalize foreign business investments in their country that may be substantial. If for example someone bought a European manufactured Ford car in Russia they can no longer make payments on it and it won’t be repo’d, so in effect they own the stuff. McDonalds or whatever else was built by foreigners in Russia may begin to be operated by Cossacks or renamed McBoris’. In the past, nationalization usually was a move communists made, hence the irony. Booking Cold War tours to Siberia via China with tour bus itineraries that could feature famous Gulags of the Evil Empire and how they kept inmates imprisoned for decades without anything besides torture and quick show trials, time share condos with fully stocked refrigerators and free, complimentary espionage kits oil at home.

Russian gasoline prices may drop to the equivalent of fifty cents per gallon as they keep their fuel at home. Cheap fuel prices and self-reliance on food production may allow vigorous economic activity to continue for a year or two during the sanctions regime and that may create jobs for rogue manufacturers to relocate production to Siberia. Taking advantage of cheap energy and easy access to Chinese markets. It may be wrong to misunderestimate the effect of gifting to President Von Putin free nationalization of foreign investment in Russia. The Lawyer’s War of Ukrainemay generate unusual collateral business evolutions.

In the old days Americans sometimes laid across railroad tracks to stop transport of nuclear weapons and got legs cut off for the trouble. Nowadays they get government stimulus checks, pile up public debt and buy mint frappe lattes wondering if bitcoin bites off more than it can chew at foreign owned mid-west mining server farms. It is good that oil prices may reach $200 per barrel as that will stimulate Chinese solar panel construction, and if the Von Biden administration ends Chinese tariffs, end inflationary spirals so recession could halt mid-flight. At the macro-economic plain, prospects for a burgeoning legal industry look good; lawsuits easily replace statesmanship as they can replace navigation on air and sea dealing with any negative consequences to randomly evolving destinations, punitively.