Averting war should top America’s agenda

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Late last week, The New York Post, MSN and other major media outlets delivered more bad news for beleaguered Americans. “Experts are now predicting that all-out war with Russia could develop within the next 20 years, a top NATO official has warned as the bloc prepared for its biggest military exercises in decades.

“We have to realize it’s not a given that we are in peace,” Dutch Adm. Rob Bauer, chairman of NATO’s military committee, told reporters after a meeting of the alliance’s defense chiefs in Brussels.”

It’s a great strategy for making the case for “drawing the line” in Ukraine! For the military-industrial complex, this translates to more money. Yet, there may be alternatives.

A decade ago, Angela Stent introduced an enlightening read: “The Limits of Partnerships.” It discussed in detail, the ups and downs in contemporary U.S.-Russian relations. Probably the most astounding notable revealed by Dr. Stent was Vladimir Putin’s desire to join NATO.

As reported, Putin first broached outgoing President Bill Clinton about the prospect of Russia joining the M.A.P. program.  M.A.P.  is the systematic sequence employed by former Warsaw Pact nations in becoming a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Clinton’s response was, “I don’t have a problem with it. In fact, I’ll endorse it.”

Putin repeated the request to incoming President, George W. Bush. Bush’s response was, “I don’t have a problem with it. In fact, I’ll endorse it.”

However, when then Secretary of State Colin Powell received the proposal, he couched it.

Ramaswamy’s Points Making Increasing Sense

JP, Vivek Ramaswamy shook the very foundation of America’s political class when he proclaimed, “the constitution calls for three branches of government. Not four.”

Powell’s action lent credence to Putin’s assertion that “having dealt with a number of American Presidencies, I realized that it’s those men in black suits behind the scenes who are truly running America.”

The Russian President later referred to them as “the deep state.”

As with Donald Trump and others who challenged the narrative, Ramaswamy was ridiculed and chastised by Democrats, Neocons and the corporate media. Especially when he proposed term limits for federal bureaucrats.

In a blistering article, MSN warned Americans of Trump’s plan to reinstate “Schedule F” which would terminate thousands of civil service workers. Originally told by his lawyers that this was legally impossible, Ramaswamy made clear that Trump had gotten inaccurate legal advice. He contended that “mass layoffs” were legal but would face legal challenges, ultimately landing in the SCOTUS.

Ingrained in the American Psyche

From the “silent generation” on, it has been fashionable to see Russia as “the enemy.” Perhaps it’s due to Russia being synonymous with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union translated to Marxism and Communism, the root of all evil and misery. It is fact that Marxism was responsible for 100 million deaths worldwide during the previous century.

In 1991, things officially changed in Russia. Suddenly there was no Soviet Union. The Russian people found their experiment with Democracy fraught with peril. Their previous “cradle to grave” existence had severely limited them. While applauding their resolve, people tended to forget that the Russians had no experience with Democracy.

Russians have historically gravitated to a strong, authoritarian type leader, whether it be Putin, Joseph Stalin, Catherine the Great, Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible. In a lot of Russian opinions, Democracies don’t work. They always end up Oligarchies or Plutocracies.

Capitalism is another thing. Russian historians acknowledged the stagnation of the Soviet Union’s demand economy. “Perestroika” amounted to “reorganization.” While there have been unpredicted twists and turns, reforms are being made. Beginning with the privatization of agricultural lands. The vast Russian forests that make up 22% of the planet’s forests and are next on the docket. It is believed that there may be more wealth in these Russian forests than in their oil and natural gas.

A New N.A.T.O.?

Prior to 1917, the United States and Russia had a consistent, congenial even storied relationship. Regaining that historical footing would be a major positive for the entire globe. The question becomes, “how?”

The United States Senate has become reminiscent of a “geriatric center.” Many Senators holding key committee chairmanships are in their seventies and eighties. At best, they see Russia as the Soviet Union during Mikael Gorbachev’s time. At worst, they see it as was seen when Leonid Brezhnev ran things. To even conceive of a new alliance headed by the United States and Russia is probably beyond them.

A new alliance dubbed, “the Coalition for World Peace,” would have support. Russia and the United States are natural allies. Both would gain immensely from such a relationship. Locating a starting point is key.

It begins with trust. James Baker had previously promised Russia that there would be no N.A.T.O. expansion eastward. That didn’t happen! The good news is both nations are faith based, exercising tolerance for different religions. Christians make up the majority in both countries.

Russia is not Western civilization. They did not grow up with Aesop’s Fables and Canterberry Tales. Their people are ordinarily not as mobile as Americans. Many will live in the same homes and communities their entire lives. They place more emphasis on their extended families than Americans do.

“Keeping all Russian people together” has always been the goal. They relish a Russia as was seen when Peter the Great was “Tsar of the three Russia’s.”  Then Russia included “Great Russia, Little Russia and White Russia.”

Donald Trump appears to have recognized this paradigm. Attempting to sell it to a Senate full of “seventies vintage cold warriors” will be difficult. Replacing Clinton, Bush and Obama-era State Department members would be as easy as enacting term limits, another difficult endeavor.

As inconvenient and unrealistic as these actions might be, they’re preferable to an all-out war. Especially when considering that the opponent has nuclear capabilities comparable to our own.

Latest posts by Jeff Willis (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.