The Peace Dividend is Dead; Aftermath

The old joke about what one should do if they hit a lawyer jogging with their car (back up and do it again) could be well-applied to lawyer Presidents of the Democrat Party running over the peace at the end of Cold War 1.0. That is run over the peace to kill it and future peace dividends to make sure that peace is well and truly dead. If fighting and winning a war does more harm to the victor and makes his position less secure than making peace before the war, a belligerent should consider choosing the path of peace. Democrats should have considered making a peace settlement with Russia over Eastern Ukraine and Crimea rather than financing a war with Ukrainian proxies.

One may compare historical trends to weather. Some people prefer censorship of news bad to them, even news of bad weather. Weather though, like political relations doesn’t change just because one sticks one’s head up their ass so they don’t see it. Thus I write about the real political changes and some consequences likely to follow the Democrat Party’s obsession with making Ukraine an independent state affiliated with the west, through military conflict with Russia. I prefer to be on the accurate side of describing history in progress.

Shouldn’t one expect the U.S. Government to be trustworthy or honest in its efforts to keep the world peaceful? When the spokespersons of the U.S. Government seem inflexibly propagandist in expressions about Russia and Ukraine that is challenging to believe they have good character or good faith. They should at minimum be capable of expressing the opposition force point of view or rationale in regard to the conflict in order to logically react to the Russian position. I will provide and example of what the U.S. Government might say in order to seem honest…

State Department Spokesman; “We understand that Russia feels that President Clinton in effect stole Ukraine from historical when Russia was weak and effectively helpless after the end of the Soviet Union and wants it back- we just don’t give a fuck. We have plenty of money, guns, lawyers and Ukrainians to throw into the fray. We have friendly propaganda media that support our side of the battle willing to repeat our assertion that Russia is the unprovoked aggressor- and that’s just the way it is.”

The U.S. Government and N.A.T.O. positioned themselves like chess players with the white pieces against Russian defenders playing black during the post-Cold war era. White played a positional game gradually strengthening its position in former East Block countries with additions to N.A.T.O. followed by increasing sanctions on Russia after Russia took Crimea. White played like Anatole Karpov with 24 inch pythons tightening all over the board. With the ascension of historical Russian adversary Joe Biden to the White House, Russian President Vlad Putin choose to use the normal blitz chess strategy of attacking on the opponent’s half of the board instead of moving his own pieces around in some kind of positional play that loses without sorties from interior lines in some kind of ultra-modern tactic. Maybe it is comparable to Israel’s pre-emptive attack in the Yom Kippur war while Egypt was mobilizing its forces for a first strike. The initial long, inadequately supported Russian drive to Kiev where armored columns became bogged down and ran out of fuel seems to have been a bold, early checkmate effort that failed.

Even so black pieces remain in what was White’s half of the board (Eastern Ukraine) and seem set for some sort of defense against the highly publicized white counter-attack. It might be a mistake though to anticipate that the black pieces will abandon the traditional blitz chess plan of attacking on their opponents side of the board with a king hunt leading to checkmate. Russians are pretty good chess players and not usually easy knockouts.

It may be that the U.S.A. and N.A.T.O. wins its proxy war against Russia. Post-war would the U.S.A. expect a situation like it encountered in post-war Iraq where it eliminated most of the leaders of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party? Would that mean eliminating the Russia United Party? Is regime change an implicit part of the game plan of the west although they have not said so publicly? Would the U.S.A. be content in erecting a new Iron Curtain against Russia until it can foment a revolution in Russia that works? Maybe I should write on this subject in five years to learn how things worked out.

It should be a priority to the west that the world polity be not divided to the level of war. If in order to keep the world economy buzzing peacefully and humming along with modernization and ecological restoration in Eurasia that Russia have it south-western lands that were taken from it by the communists initially, restored to it, and that the Ukraine is shared between Russia and a pro-western government on the west bank of the Dnepr then that should have been the project that U.S. leadership worked on. Pursuing war rather than peace was a mistake from the start. It was a mistake that U.S. leadership seems incapable of finding even a smidgen of willingness to correct.

With the basic international policy direction toward eliminating tariffs on trans-boundary business (as in the E.U. and N.A.F.T.A. nations) building a new Iron Curtain dividing capitalism east and west is plainly a regressive policy. If Russia owned the Crimean Peninsula and its present Eastern Ukrainian holdings and peace established, sanctions ended and free trade restored within a decade the distinction of who owns the land would pale in significance in comparison to the prosperity and liberty for travel. For the west to develop a policy that results in the worst future scenario with a divided East and West without any sort of ideological economic foundation as it had with communism seems insane with the caveat that a nuclear conflict would be worse.

Following the political original sin of separating Russia from Crimea and the Ukraine during President Clinton’s (a Democrat lawyer) term of office, the Democrat Party has pursued a narrow legalistic line toward Russia. The original sin created a ripe condition for the rise of Russian sentiment to recover its lost land as it developed as a post-Soviet nation. Democrat president’s were confident of their legal right to defend Ukraine. Law I should point out is based on force. Military power is the juice that makes law effective at the international level if one wishes to assert a legal paradigm between nations rather than political common sense and statesmanship.

Democrat lawyer President since Clinton have also pursued a legalistic approach toward Russia (Obama and Biden) entirely disregarding statesmanship and common sense. So what is the cost to the United States for tripling down on force-based U.S. law toward Russia and its will to retake its lost Ukrainian land?

The peace dividend that to President Clinton may have been the opportunity o redistribute parts of the former Soviet Union to the west in the absence of a military backed governance capability of the former Warsaw pact nations was to Wall Street the opportunity to invest around the world including China and the former Soviet Union from an advantaged position. The united States, the west and even the east may have believed a new era with less military expenses would follow. Greater world security could arise without a Cold War and nuclear, biological and chemical threats. Only a few of those conditions developed, as for example, nuclear weapons proliferation seems to have increase rather than decreased.

Opportunity costs to the United States for ending the Cold War should have prompted the Democrat lawyer-presidents to consider statesmanship templates for adjudicating the Russia-Ukraine issue in addition to narrow legalism in a system wherein the United States Government as the principle nuclear weapons stakeholder of N.A.T.O. was in a position of being the Supreme Political Court and Chief Executive as well. The legal advantage blinders of Democrat lawyer Presidents through every kind of sanction and punishment on Russia that it could since the reconquista of the Crimean Peninsula. The process followed by the Democrat Part’s belligerence toward Russia with false accusation against former President Trump that he colluded with Russians to steal the 2016 election from the female Democrat lawyer presidential contender Hillary Clinton left Russia with little reason to believe that the newly elected Democrat party lawyer President Joe Biden would be anything besides hostile and determined to add more sanctions upon and isolation of Russia internationally so far as it could. Because of continuing U.S. weapons build-up in Ukraine and addition of new members of N.A.TO. The Russian point of view concerning its prospects for retaking Ukraine may have been that the situation would only worsen if it waited. The election of Joe Biden to the White House in 2020 prompted the invasion of Ukraine in 2021 after Joe Biden was sworn in to office.

The decision to make Russia a lasting enemy seems to have been a strategic mistake for the United States during a time when it experienced several international challenges as well as domestic. Instead of Russia being a good free trade partner working cooperatively with the United States on numerous fronts from anti-terrorism to ecological health restoration, global warming fighting etc a new divided Eurasia likely to follow the end of a war settled through military force.

The U.S. Federal Reserve issues loans to big banks owned by the rich at very agreeable interest rates that are sometimes zero. For every dollar deposited electronically in big bank that bank for the rich can loan out four more abstract dollars appearing from nothing- virtual currency that need be repaid to the bank with real dollars, while the big bank need just repay one dollar to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve in effect issues free money to the rich so they can buy up the planet’s resources and invest in foreign nations to get in on the ground floor. Dividing East and West along the Ukraine border changes the balances concerning full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Today the President says he won’t negotiate on the issue of raising the nation’s debt ceiling and ability to borrow by selling i.o.u.’s to the Federal Reserve (who issues virtual dollars made from nothing to buy the i.o.u. paper). President Biden wants no limit public debt and borrowing so he can finance the Ukraine war and fund a government that can’t sustain itself through tax revenues since it cut the taxes on rich to low, low levels. There can be severe consequences to all of the bungled policy choices that first affect the poor and lower middle class adversely as the advantaged seek to make them pay for the bad policy.

The Democrat Party floods the nation with cheap foreign, illegal labor to keep wages down for the working class. The poor and middle class buy their goods at Wal-mart stocked with cheap manufactured in China goods. Good jobs were outsourced to new Chinese factories as the U.S.A. became a service economy convenient to the rich globalists running the show through Democrat party mouthpieces and of course blue blood Republicans loyal to the dollar as if it were an opioid. Fentanyl and food stamps have become the new opioids for the masses.

Instead of a world with suppressed terrorism an increase of terrorism may occur. Rather than establishing efficient trans-continental high speed transportation such as with hyper-tubes, or very fast and efficient Eurasian to North American very high speed and low pollution ground cargo hyper-tubes no progress will occur that requires Russian participation. China will be the benefiting nation.

Already the world’s largest economic power, China’s preferred nation status with Russia will synergize its growth with low cost Russian natural resources unwelcome in the west. China will also have the best position to invest in Russian development and would be capable of helping the Russian economy grow during the era of continuing western sanction against Russia that probably will continue indefinitely. A new Cold War will follow the end of the hot Russian-Ukraine conflict, if it can even be peaceably settled without use of nuclear weapons.

Strategically the United States Government has selected policy toward Russia and Ukraine that weakened U.S. national security and economic prospects. It is not unlikely that the Chinese Juan will replace the U.S. dollar as the preferred global currency within a decade or two as the Chinese economy continues a well balanced increase without compiling vast public debt during a time when the United States has low taxes on the rich concentrating wealth internationally while the domestic economy is financed with vast public debt. Military costs required to keep up with an arms race with Russia and China to force the legal will of the Democrat Party instead of peaceful statesmanship with rational expectations and real politicks concerning international power is consistent with the evolution of the Democrat party into one that uses law like play dough to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate it to whatever extent it can to have its way with political affairs.






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: