Senate cracks on Ukraine

Bottom falls out on “tough on Russia”?

U.S. Senate backing for the “tough on Russia” agenda has just suffered a possibly fatal blow, from an unexpected direction.  

“Bernie” has published an op-ed in Britain’s left-wing Guardian newspaper (evidently, our Amazon Post and New York Times wouldn’t run his pacifist views), asking for a pause on hot talk over the Ukraine.  Although Bernie offers no solution to the Ukraine problem, he does recognize, among other things, that sanctions on Russia (and Russian counter-sanctions) would blow up the world economy, thus—although he doesn’t say it—sinking Brandon’s presidency and of course, the Democrat congress.  

(In fact, in recognizing that the sanctions war would have an “impact” on “food”, Bernie is our first politician to acknowledge, however obliquely, the world’s extreme need for Russian and Belarussian fertilizer, without which, our grocery prices would explode like we’ve never seen.  Like him or not, his staff are ahead of anyone in Washington—perhaps they’re reading the Dreizin Report?)

Whatever the details, 

the Democrat Loony Left has put a stake in the ground against any more foreign distraction from its agenda. 

With the Loonies as the dominant wing of the party today, Senate Democrats now risk falling off the “tough on Russia” wagon.  Indeed, they have already strongly resisted the “extreme sanctions now, before Putin invades Ukraine” line put forward by the Senate GOP.

You see, the “problem” for our “Russia hawks” is that the Dem voting base—blacks, immigrants, college-age youth, collegetown types—doesn’t care, mostly never cared about foreign policy.  They went along with the Collusion Hoax, but that was just to get at Trump.  They don’t care about planting our flag and maintaining American hegemony, it doesn’t turn them on—they want “social justice” here at home.  Now, 

that feeling has finally (and openly) percolated up to their lead standard-bearer in Washington. 

At the same time,

the great mass of patriot Deplorables, who in ages past would have backed any war anywhere, have fallen off their own party’s (to the extent it’s still their party) war wagon—and for the same “no distractions, please” reason.  On relevant pages on Gateway PunditCitizen Free Press, etc., 90 percent of the comments are pro-Russia or not taking a side.  In their pursuit of Russia, congressional Republicans have no leg to stand on, other than their campaign donors in the military-industrial complex.

So, what electoral support is there, today, for “tough on Russia”?  Clearly, none.  And, it’s not just a “lack” of support.  Voters on both sides are against it.  It is now clear, the public will not understand, accept, or tolerate any economic suffering from Russia sanctions/counter-sanctions.  We don’t want to hear any “it’s a small price to pay for democracy” bulls****.  We have other concerns. We’re too busy getting at each other!  

With Bernie’s “I’m not playing along anymore” encouragement (and there’s no question that Brandon’s embalmers are taking notice; certainly, much more has been said behind the scenes), perhaps the U.S. and Russia can execute a mutually acceptable formula for ending the Ukraine stand-off.  Amazingly, this formula has existed since 2014—it is known as the Minsk Protocols, or Minsk Accords. 

In late 2014 and early 2015, in exchange for Putin calling off the Russian/rebel offensives that had destroyed most of the Ukrainian army at that time, Russia, Ukraine, the nominal rebel leaders, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (under French and German guidance) signed a series of “road maps”—in Minsk, Belarus—for ending the conflict. 

Aside from predictable ceasefire measures (“you stop shooting, we stop shooting”, etc.), these plans involve the Ukraine granting autonomy to its Russian-oriented Donetsk and Lugansk regions, in exchange for them disarming and remaining part of Ukraine.  (Sort of like Kurdistan inside Iraq.)  The plan also involved a constitutional reform to decentralize Ukraine, paving the way for limited autonomy of other (perhaps all) provinces.

Naturally, it’s a bit more complicated, as there is no clear chronology for the measures, and so, from day one, the U.S. and Ukraine insisted “the rebels must totally disarm first”—and let Ukraine’s border guard come in and take back the border with Russia—before any political concessions or reform—sort of a, “let me eat you and then we’ll talk.”  However, if something changes on the U.S. side, if the will is ever there, Minsk is the answer.

Now you understand why the Donetsk and Lugansk armies have never been named as such—they are still called “peoples’ militia” or “peoples’ police”, depending on the translation, in recognition that these regions, under “Minsk”, are part of the Ukraine and can’t have their own armed forces. 

Of course, Minsk was signed when the Ukraine was very weak, and its new patron, the U.S., was on the back foot.  At the time, it was a desperation move, a way for the West to save face, buy time, and avoid total disaster with its Ukraine project.  It’s no surprise that in the years since, Minsk has been conveniently forgotten by “our” side—the Ukraine has no intention of ever implementing any “inconvenient” part of it, and Uncle Sam was never bound, not a signatory to begin with.

Indeed, how often are the Minsk Accords mentioned in our MSM?  Never! 

(In Russia, they are mentioned all the time.)  And yet, they are the obvious way out of the conflict.  In fact, Minsk is the only path to rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia.  

Naturally, Russia would have considerable pull in an autonomous Donetsk and Lugansk (not much different from today.)  Ukrainian nationalists would have to give up on ever “Ukraine-izing” (linguistically de-Russifying) these areas.  Moreover, with a decentralized form of government, other Ukrainian regions might get their own ideas, potentially aligning with Russia, Poland, or (in the far west) Hungary or Romania.  In principle, the Ukraine would become a federation, like the United States, albeit with various foreign influences.  And, being at peace, the Ukraine would have no further value to Uncle Sam as a thorn in Russia’s side. 


Ukraine’s existence and its legal borders would be formally, permanently maintained. 

(Exclusive of the Crimea, anyway.)  Isn’t that what the war hawks claim to want?  

(Rhetorical question, of course—they could give a rap about Ukraine.  Their target was always Russia.  The props don’t matter, the props are disposable.) 

Of course, Bernie didn’t suggest Minsk, or anything else, because his staff don’t care—it’s just about avoiding an economic meltdown from a sanctions war with Russia, and getting Ukraine off the plate for a month or two while they keep “working” on Manchin, or whatever their evil plans may be.  And yet, Brandon/Kambodia must take Bernie’s “cool it with the Russia stuff” seriously.  It’s hard to imagine the White House never heard it from Bernie before—it’s just out in the open, much more forceful now. 

Realistically, a Russia/Ukraine war is more likely, as Brandon/Kampuchea likely won’t manage to thread the needle between the “Empire” interests in the foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex, and their voting base.  (Trump obviously had the same problem, and was sabotaged relentlessly—even impeached—for it.)  The Empire has concrete, specific, day-to-day turf/ego, career, and financial stakes in what it does, whereas the base can stand against it only in muddled fashion at primary time, or by voting in reduced numbers, and that’s only every two years. 

Nonetheless, it’s nice to see their tribes finally start to go in their own directions.  Since the Democrats took over, this may be the first time the “Progressives” have really (in more than just rhetoric) stood up to the Establishment.  

It’s clear they smell something burning and they don’t want to be a part of it. 

Let’s hope they peel off in other areas as well.  

Posted in UkraineYour UN-fake News Source