Note (16MAY2016): Russia is modernizing its military and fortifying its position in the Black Sea. What to do? Are we to go to war?

Consider these United States of America simultaneously conducting warfare in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria while going to war against China in the South Pacific, North Korea, and Russia. Currently, this nation on fire has launched economic warfare with 28 other countries in the form of sanctions — sanctions that punish American enterprise whilst rewarding foreign enterprise. Such is American foreign policy.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” -George Washington’s Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

The government of these United States of America has characterized Russia as an enemy. It has done so by levying economic and political sanctions. Such sanctions are tantamount to a declaration of economic and political warfare. If Russia really is our enemy, in what way?

In contrast to China, Germany, Japan, and Mexico, economically what threat does Russia represent? Yes, it is the largest country geographically in the world. Yes, it contains immense natural resources, much of which remain undeveloped. Those natural resources comprise the substantial majority of Russian exports. Yet, a relatively small percentage go to these United States. Compared to the American trading deficit with China or even Mexico, they are negligible. So, does Russia represent an economic threat to these United States?

In contrast to our southern neighbor, politically what threat does Russia represent? Admittedly, yesteryear, cloaked in its garb of international socialism while waving the banner of the erstwhile Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, it did. The Communist Party USA, funded by the USSR and composed of those whom Lenin called “useful idiots”, boasted a sizable membership and influenced especially American academia and entertainment. Today, there remains no USSR. There remains only Russia — a Russia in political turmoil as it evolves from the chaos of collapsed Communism followed by ineffectual democracy heading towards the authoritative order of Fascism.

To what extent are the internal politics of Russia the official business of these United States, anyway? Cannot a case can be made that Russia needs a Tsar in whatever form, be it a Catherine the Great or a Stalin and that it now is getting a new one in the person of Vladimir Putin? So, does Russia represents a political threat to these United States?

In contrast to our own, homegrown, Marxist-oriented egalitarians, sociologically what threat does Russia represent? As these United States sink ever more deeply into a semi-psychotic, moral cesspool of abominations never before witnessed in history, Russia seems to represent something of the opposite. The government there has strengthened its ties to the Russian Orthodox Church and promotes traditional moral values based upon Judeo-Christian liturgy. Whereas ordinary Russians may not meet the standards set by church and government, the country remains one of the last bastions of those values. Meanwhile, Russia has intervened in American sociological affairs not at all. So, does Russia represent a sociological threat to these United States?

Ah, but what about militarily? Does not a nuclear-armed, militarily modernizing Russia represent a direct threat to the stability of the world, let alone these United States?

It depends upon one’s point of view. From the point of view of the neo-conservatives, who never met a war, especially a losing war, that they didn’t love, the answer is yes. To the financial profits and power to the military-industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned us two generations ago, the answer is yes. From the pont of view of the Founding Fathers, however, might not the answer be no?

Is Russia invading these United States? Is it threatening to invade these United States? Is it massing armaments and troops on our borders or even anywhere near them as this nation is doing to Russia?

Is not the irony that these United States may be under attack, but the attack is not from Russia? Are not the real invaders illegal aliens who may be unarmed but represent invaders, nonetheless? Are not the primary nations attacking these United States Mexico and some other Latin American countries? Do not the Mexicans label their particular invasion “La Reconquista”?

“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease, and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Spoils 8:36

Also, what about the Mohammedans? Despite smaller numbers, no small matter is the invasion by Mohammedans, who soon will outnumber Jews in this nation on fire. Do not they label their aggression as “The Silent Invasion” although it is anything but silent in Europe?

So, to what extent does Russia represent a military threat as the aggressor to these United States? To what extent do these United States represent a military threat as the aggressor to Russia?


In discussing Russo-American relations, any defense of the Russian position automatically generates vituperative responses ad hominem from those who place opinion before knowledge. To adopt their myopic, biased viewpoint is to place this nation and the rest of the world in danger of a nuclear annihilation that nobody but a fanatical Mohammedan wants. Let us, therefore, attempt a more dispassionate analysis and offer an alternative to current American, foreign policy — an alternative consistent with advice of the father of this nation.

Who Is The Real Aggressor?
Is it not the fact of the matter that it is these United States that has acted as the aggressor toward Russia? Is it not we who instigated a successful plot to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Ukraine in order to prevent it linking closer to its historic ally, Russia? Is it not we who have levied international sanctions against Russia for retaliating against this American-inspired plot?

Russia has not been the only target in that regard. We have levied international sanctions against almost thirty other nations, as well. Who suffers most? American commercial enterprises.

Is not demanding other nations obey our economic and political dictates a form of extraterritoriality? Is it not we who have placed arms and troops on the Russian border, using an otherwise impotent NATO as camouflage?

After World War Two, we created NATO as an agency for the defense of Western Europe against an aggressive and hostile USSR. Today, there remains no USSR, but there still remains a NATO that we have expanded to include nations far from the Atlantic Ocean — nations bordering on Russia itself. Are we willing to engage in total, nuclear war with Russia, a war that will exterminate all aerobic life on Earth, to defend Estonia, assuming Estonia even needs defending?

Indeed, Russia may be attempting to expand its sphere of national interest to include nations historically under its influence. Do history and tradition justify such an attempt? Once again, the answer depends upon one’s point of view.

In its attempt to expand its influence, did Russia invade Ukraine? Did it not merely negotiate agreements with the freely elected government in Kiev? Was it not these United States that intervened, promoting rebellion to overthrow that legitimate government? The rebellion was successful. Had there been no American-inspired rebellion, would Russia have reclaimed Crimea militarily?

So, does not the issue become reduced to the quest by these United States to retain hegemony worldwide? Can we? Even if we can, is it in our interests? Can we afford it?

In the words of former Speaker of the House of Representative, John Boehner, “We’re broke!”

Does President Washington’s advice, as quoted above, mean to become isolationist? Does it not mean to become non-interventionist, intervening only when it is in our direct, immediate, national interest in a way that also is in our national interest? Should these United States not support republican liberty wherever we find it — support it in spirit but neither in blood nor coin?

An Alternative
“In matters of international diplomacy and foreign affairs, we shall return to the principles and guidelines laid down by our Founding Fathers.  The principles and guidelines are readily available for anyone to read in the Constitution of the United States of America, in the Federalist Papers, and in Washington’s Farewell Address.  Accordingly and effective immediately, the United States of America recognizes diplomatically the de facto existence of any nation with which we are not officially at war.  We shall withdraw our military forces from all bases outside the Western Hemisphere by the end of this year, including withdrawal from NATO … the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  If any nation wishes our military to remain or to establish installations, we shall review that request with regard to our national interests.  If we decide that specific installations are in our national interest, that nation will pay us for our helping it to defend itself.  It will pay all direct costs plus fifteen percent for administrative overhead.  No longer will Americans pay to protect others while they divert money from their own military defenses to commercial offensives against us, their protectors.  If others want American military protection, they must pay for it.  We re-affirm that the Western Hemisphere comprises the primary area of United States’ national interest.  In that regard, we also re-affirm the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 prohibiting the stationing of African, Asian, or European troops or bases in the Western Hemisphere outside Africa or Europe.”
-Excerpt from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences.


In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


Comments are closed.