The Ukraine and You

The formal, face-to-face, U.S.-Russia and then NATO-Russia talks over Russia’s proposed non-aggression pact (a key condition of which is NATO members not pursuing NATO membership for the Ukraine or any other country) don’t start for some more days, but already they are not looking promising.  Uncle Sam came out publicly to the effect that he does not intend to base his “offensive weapons” (read: nuclear bombs or missiles) in the Ukraine, but this is immensely far from what Russia is demanding.  It’s like you asking for a ten percent raise, and your boss counter-offering to enhance the coffee selection for the Keurig machine in the break room. 

The fact is, NATO now lives only to expand—we all know the only thing it ever does and talks about doing is expanding, it thinks of nothing else, it’s like The Blob, most recently assimilating Macedonia and for some reason Montenegro, which is basically a half-dozen casino hotels.  Thus, committing to stop its growth (and no longer pursue countries that might need help against Russia) would render NATO purposeless and essentially kill it, not immediately, but nonetheless.  That would mean a slow, quiet death for U.S. military hegemony in Europe, all those countries coming to Uncle Sam for comfort and leadership (and in some cases, money)—clearly, not something Washington can accept.  You don’t take 75 years to build yourself up as block captain and then shut it all down just because, “Hey folks, it’s been a helluva run!”

We’ll see how it goes, but it’s reasonable to expect that by sometime next month, Time magazine may have Putin back on the cover as “The Face of Evil” as he rolls into the Ukraine.  It’s critical for Republicans not to overreact, not to be associated too closely with the War Fever, as any big moves in the Ukraine would: 

  • Spike the oil price and likely bring regular gas close to or above $4.00 a gallon across most of America.
  • Lead to serious problems for American farmers once “killer” financial sanctions are levied on Russia, as the U.S. gets about 40 percent of its ammonium nitrate (and a good amount of potash) from Russia, and if we can’t—if no one can—pay for it (or the oil or the gas) directly because Russian banks are cut off from dollar transactions, the Russians would have to “launder” it through some other country (likely, in part, China) at a huge mark-up, but even that work-around wouldn’t be smooth or immediate, there would be severe shortages, and unfortunately fertilizer is already priced at all-time highs, and industry leaders and experts are saying there (already, as it stands today) won’t be enough to go around for spring planting.  Yes, you read that right.
  • Not that Brandon’s people need any manufacturing, but Boeing would eventually have to suspend production, as most of its titanium components come from just one town in Russia.  

Short of taking Masha and the Bear off YouTube, and bouncing Russia off the “app store” and Apple/Android updates and support, 

almost anything that can “be done” to Russia without hurting the USA and perhaps you personally, has already been done.  Anything along the “killer” lines that Brandon and Kambodia have threatened, would cause economic dislocations and a serious risk to the U.S. harvest in late 2022 and beyond. 

Republicans would be stupid to cheerlead Brandon and make of him a “great crisis leader” as we go over that cliff. 

It’s better to just shut up, let Brandon’s handlers eat it and choke on it.  If they want to spike inflation and further bury their party (and perhaps rack up “another Afghanistan” if Ukraine’s army and government turn out to be fake plastic mush on our payroll, gee whiz, not another one?), let them go right ahead—the GOP can pile on afterwards. 

Lastly, someone please keep Senator Roger “we could do a nuclear first strike on Russia” Wicker off of Fox.  The gentleman has had enough drinks and needs to be driven home. 

P.S.  If you have a few more minutes… My recent description (based on my own partial translation) of the Russian peace proposals as a full-on, formal non-aggression pact (it has not been reported as such anywhere else in our media), was picked up and mentioned by David T. Pyne in his latest piece in the National Interest online, published January 1st.  David is a senior member of the EMP Task Force on National & Homeland Security, and in this piece he writes about the need to negotiate in light of Russia’s nuclear and EMP (electromagnetic pulse weapon) superiority, and the threat thereof.  I don’t know much about that (my focus is on economic and electoral aspects), but it sounds very concerning, and if he cites me, surely it’s worth a read!  I’m not including a weblink, as if I do (even in hyperlinked text), this message will be filtered out and won’t reach many of you.  But, please check David out if you can.

P.P.S.  Repeated from my last Ukraine message, below is my own partial translation—of the most important parts, with my comments or clarifications in italics—of a draft non-aggression pact or “peace treaty” that was handed in hard copy by Russia to the U.S. and every other NATO member state this month, in the interests of avoiding a war in the Ukraine.  The hard copies were in Russian and either English or French (French because France is so special, English for everyone else), but I’m not aware that the U.S./NATO side has released anything, so all we have to go on is the Russian text that was shared publicly on the Russian side and carried in complete form (to include scans/snapshots of the actual document) in various Russian media.  

I am covering this because our media hasn’t and won’t—if you’re not interested, OK, but it’s your world, you’ll be paying for it at the pump among other places, you may have loved ones in the military, and you have a right to know.


(This is the copy that was given to the U.S., but my understanding is they are all the same except for the NATO member country name in the headline.)

(The preamble is not interesting.)

Section 1

The Participants……..commit to not creating conditions or situations that could present or be interpreted as a threat to the national security of other Participants.

Participants will demonstrate restraint in their military planning and in the conduct of (military) exercises so as to reduce risks of potential dangerous situations…

Section 3

The Participants affirm that they do not view each other as adversaries. 

Section 4

The Russian Federation and all Participants that were NATO members as of 27 May 1997, respectively, do not locate their armed forces and armaments on the territory of any other European states, beyond those forces located on such territory as of 27 May 1997.  (In plain English, “any other” is the former Warsaw Pact countries that joined NATO starting in the late 1990s, as well as Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova.  Russia, for its part, would obviously be committing to avoid any new deployments to Belarus.)  In extraordinary cases, with the rise of situations involving the necessity to neutralize threats to the security of one or several Participants, such deployments can be manifested with the agreement of all Participants.

Section 5

The participants reject the deployment of ground-based, medium and short-range missiles in areas from which they are capable of striking targets on the territory of other Participants.  (This means Russia would not deploy such missiles to Kaliningrad, Belarus, or potentially even anywhere west of the Volga, and the U.S. would not deploy its own to Poland, Germany, Romania, etc.) 

Section 6

Participant members of NATO accept commitments to reject the future expansion of NATO, to include the addition of Ukraine as well as other countries. 

Section 7

…With the aim of preventing incidents, the Russian Federation and Participant members of NATO do not conduct military exercises and other military activities above the brigade level (i.e. no exercise involving more than about 4500 total personnel from all countries participating in the exercise) in a buffer of (to-be) agreed-upon width and configuration on both sides of the border line between the Russian Federation and its military allies (in the given context, Belarus and possibly Armenia and Transnistria) and Participant members of NATO. 

Update: January 8, 2022

Ukraine and You, Part II:  Pooty-Poot and the GOP

Someone responded to me to get off the mailing list, also giving me a mouthful about how can we possibly not stand with Brandon/Kambodia (even if they’re our opponents) against Putin, who is much worse.  I don’t respond to RINO’s, but the voting base has its own idea about who is worse.  Really, the best answer to this question is, “The same way the Dems stood with Iran after General Soleimani (much worse than Putin) was dismembered by an attack drone sent by Trump!” 

I’m NOT saying the Congressional GOP needs to make excuses for our real or perceived rivals, rather, just give the Dems nothing and please cool those jets.  Because I have news for our Congressional staff and other policy and communications masters:  At this time, most of the base respects, even likes, Putin more than Brandon and frankly (no offense) more than YOU.  

I read the comments everywhere, they are five to one, Putin would primary every one of your bosses, he’s a superstar—rightly or wrongly, the projection and embodiment of the opposite of everything screwy with our country right now.  He may be more corrupt-rich than Pelosi, but your voters (the ones who can think) see he cares—like all able kings must care, because it’s their kingdom and their own head—about his country and its borders and industries; he is the nation and he’s awake and he takes every blow personally.  He’s not pushing some narrow ideology; he doesn’t roll over for the “climate change” bandwagon, the GloboHomo agenda, NATO, or anyone or anything else.  He is a one-man anti-New World Order.  Literally most of humanity looks up to him like they should be looking up to America.  That’s why the powers in our country can’t stand him, and call him a thug and a throwback, even as they keep military bases in hereditary monarchies where women can’t hold a job, much less run for office.  He absolutely drives these people nuts.  

Putin is the fighting backbone your voters want to see in YOU.  

Not to mention, conservatives in Illinois (for example) don’t care about the democracy crusade shtick, when they will soon have just 3 out of 18 congressional seats due to redistricting, in a state where they are 40 percent of the vote.  It’s a one-party state and our people are being disenfranchised, as in any cargo-cult autocracy where voting is just for show.  Sure, they still have “free speech” (sort of, we know how that’s going), but they can’t change anything, what’s it good for?  Russia who? 

If all this is news to you, you need to get out more, because, respectfully, you don’t know your base and you forgot why you’re employed.  

Let Brandon/Kambodia take on Putin, just stay out of it.  When a loaf of the cheapest white bread costs $4 because we can’t buy the Russian fertilizer we need (see below) due to sanctions, you will be looking real smart for not jumping in on the War Fever.  

There is literally ***NO UPSIDE*** for cheering on Brandon/Kambodia as they stand tough against Pooty-Poot—you’re giving the MSM the “bipartisan consensus” ammo they need to build up Brandon as a Great Crisis Leader, without gaining a single vote for yourselves.

Please, just zip it.  Don’t send your farm reserve C-team (e.g., Senator Wicker) on Fox again to codeine-fog rant about nuking Russia to keep it out of Ukraine.  Let the Dems make that call on their own, and it will be a bad call, whatever they do, because this isn’t Serbia or Iraq or some other two-bit dump they can push around without limit, with no consequences for their voters—the stakes are much higher this time.  

Don’t be “controlled opposition” like Ted Cruz after the riot—give the Dems exactly what they give you, which is nothing!  

Posted in UkraineYour UN-fake News Source