|
Trump And Zelensky Want Peace With Russia. The Fascists Oppose That.
NBC News is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest? Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the "national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes:
[O]n the critical matter of America’s interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin’s anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that’s where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him — not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts — in charge of making policy. If we’re to remain a constitutional republic, that’s how it has to stay.
We have made the very same point:
The U.S. constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that.
and:
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
…
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in his recent NYT interview:
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine’s most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia.
“They’re stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations,” he said, comparing Russia’s power to that of Ukraine. “People want peace, a good life, they don’t want to be at war. And you” — America — “are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it.”
…
Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. “War against Russia,” he said, “to the last Ukrainian.” Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine’s economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
…
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to divulge details because the Americans “will mess it up and get in the way.”
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy’s decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in light of this domestic opposition.
…
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate peace with Russia. (He should also investigate Biden's undue influence.) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Sadly no one cares that the goal is the root of evil on BOTH sides.Trump is poison, but fools can’t get enough of him. I have no pity. by: Circe @ 100
Claims of abuse take time to materialize in the minds of observers <== yes, I think your claims about Trump are beginning to materialize in the minds of many different people and places at once.. But no one in the bar has yet resolved the question " how should Americans and all others who are governed by corrupt, negligent, incompetent or criminal persons protect themselves and their nations? The system the USA has in place to deal with the abusive or infringing powers of persons employed by the government is too weak, what there is of it, relies on the nation state itself to prosecute.
Injury cannot be prevented and resulting damages c/n/b compensatedAn injured party (member of the governed masses) no access to a means to be made whole for the corruptions of those in power. Currently, the governed must accept whatever is the result of wrongful, corrupt or abusive use of governing powers. This situation is a global problem which can only be resolved by a bottom up mass movement designed to bring worldly governments within the constraints defined by all of humanity as acceptable behavior by those in power.
There are 7 articles in the US constitution..
Article I concerns the persons elected by governed voters Article II (concerns only the VP and the President) and neither of them are elected by a popular vote.
Article II persons are elected (better appointed) to fill the Article II positions {President and VP) not by popular vote in an general election, but by a vote of the electoral college (who are they?). Meaning, the power the governed can bring to influence the government is limited; actually only a few members of the Congress might hear grievances of the governed. There are 425 such persons and the entirety of the congress represents only half of the government. If you look around at the constitutions and other governing documents in the world where capitalism, democracy or economic Zionism are in play, you find similar situations in the governing documents. Meaning, where a person exercising the power of delegated to a position in the government (that is the person in the job), enjoys unrestrained open season cart blanch opportunity to engage in corruption, fraud, deceit, and personal enrichment.
The constitution distributes power to act among those seated in various jobs. To each job it assigns certain powers and sometime assigns certain prohibitions to act. So the only restraint the voters among the governed might exercise is to vote the incumbent out of his position in the USA and to replace him/her with a new fraudster. In other words, there is no constitutionally approved way for those governed to constitutionally act to limit the abuse of power of the governed is so weak it is nearly impossible for it to remove from office a person who is abusing the power of the position by voting. A voting occurs only periodically, while the urgency to remove occurs immediately upon discovery of an abuse.
In total there are 527 identified positions in the constitution The governed are suppose to control the use of those powers by all persons who hold one of the 527 positions, but the governors have made that nearly impossible, as they have made their activities secret. How can one know what was done in secret? <=Independence Auditors can look beyond the secret to the substance, and report violations.
Minimize the distribution of power The two most powerful positions (that of President and VP) are not elected by the those the government governs, in spite of the massive amounts of money that is spent on population elections, popular elections do not elected POTUS and VP < the electoral college does this election.
Candidate access to the Ballot The electoral college is mostly directed, within each state, by power plays between the two political parties and the Secretary of each separate State. <=no wonder it is not possible to get an acceptable candidate on the ballot.
Investigate Governing documents It seems to me the US constitution, and the governing document of many nation states represent a powerful place to find the basic source of the problem of containing the abuse or misdirected use of power. Currently I believe it impossible to contain or restrain anyone who wiggles his or her way to one of the constitutionally identified position within a republican government.
Study how did it happenBarflies might think gee we know all about these abuses of power, that’s all we have talked about for years but we have never really thought we could do something about it. It was just bar talk. Instead of exposing the exploits of governors as news, maybe we should begin to study how each exploit evaded the intentions, denied the interest or redirected the benefits in deference to the governed Americans. Maybe we should document how those seated in government positions get away with their abuses(not a news to be forgotten, but as a loop hole in the constitution that needs to be fixed. In other words, when do the governed have control over those who govern, and what subject matter shifts who is the governor between the laws and acts of the civil government and the laws and acts of the governed. We have the millions of examples, we have sufficient fully documented evidence acquired from a long history of governing systems to show that whenever power is given to one or a few persons to govern, there must also be equivalent and reciprocal power given to, vested independently in, the persons who are to be the govern so that there are two governments each protecting the interest of the governed from the governors.
the Duality Model of governanceThe governors (those actors in civil government) and the governed of that civil government must each write and police the laws that the others must follow. The governors of the state become the governed of the masses once the governors are elected …and the masses become the subjects of those elected. But each party to the governor/governed relationship requires different and independent set of laws and different and independent sets of courts, and different and independent set of policing mechanisms.
Barflies..might spend some time writing up a proforma set of laws to help the governed contain the powers of those who hold power by virtue of a position in the state. What would such laws look like? Certainly over the years we each have the facts that show what it is that we are all concerned about.. Abuse of power is no longer a question, its a fact rampant among those who are the governors of the states. The question is how to contain and control abuse of power so the abusers cannot harm those that they govern?
Type of system does not matter It does not matter if one is talking about a republic, a dictatorship, a communistic system, a social system, a Nazi type system, a kingdom, a round table of investment advisers, or whatever.. the problem is the same.. and the solution i suggest is reciprocal, but independent, governance systems .. Those who govern the nation state become the governed by those who the nation state governs; there are two independent sets of laws, one applies to the governors and is enforced by the governed; and the other applies to the governed and is enforced by the governors.
CONSIDER THE RECIPROCAL MODEL OF GOVERNANCE. Nation State Governors/Nation state Governed = Nation State Governed/ Nation State Governors)
Rules for the Rulers courtesy of the governedThe nation state governors must follow the laws of mankind, human rights, and must not be allowed to find ways to corrupt or abuse their state provided powers or infringe on human rights (these must nots are the immutable laws of mankind and serve to impose on any who claim the right to govern; certain universal restraints on their powers), its just that to date those reaching a position of power have chosen to ignore them.
Restraints on abuse of power apply at all times Human rights Auditors investigate and report. Violations are remitted to a human rights court which removes the person found guilty from position of power and denies that person any right to again serve in a civil government.
Rob the RobberIt may surprise those who sought to impose globalism as a means to rob the weaker persons that the governed in every nation state jurisdiction already have a set of laws, but no enforcement mechanism to enforce them against those who abuse the power of the state.
Change the target from wealth by pillage to gain by honest effortIt seems to me, producing, imposing and enforcing reciprocal systems of governance would change the world and at the same time save it from itself.
Posted by: snake | Nov 15 2019 23:40 utc | 121
|
