Geopolitical Focus - Ukraine

What does the Conflict in Ukraine Mean for Eurasian Geo-Strategy?

At this moment in time, the ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary; In order to shape a truly cooperative global community, a large focus must be placed on long-range trends that fall in line with the fundamental interests of humankind. In the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, as someone capable of dominating Eurasia and is thus also fully capable of challenging America. This concept has been called upon in book, “The Grand Chessboard”, written by former US security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.

(Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard (p. xvi). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.)

What Brzezinski did not publicly state, is that a Europe that aligns with Russia would be considered a Superpower by geostrategic definition. So, if Europe as a whole (and most notably Germany) must rely on cooperation with Russia, it begs the question as to whether or not this has been Russia’s plan all along. Was Zelinsky just the willing puppet? What is the Strategy and what are the unexpected consequences in a geo-political world? Democracy..? We will have to see. 

Yes, the US reacted to a call from the Ukrainian President, in another case to defend Democracy, as it did in Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Egypt 1956, Cuba 1961, Vietnam 1964, Nicaragua 1981, Serbia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Ukraine (Maidan Coup) 2014, and Yemen in 2015? 

What is the definition of an illegal War?

Per the International Criminal Court, it is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes , and the crime of aggression. It is distinct from the International Court of Justice, an organ of the United Nations that hears disputes between states.

• Note the US is not part of the ICC, as the Bush / Cheney administration never approved it. 

The ineffectiveness of the UN Council is a result of the US and other VETO powers; The US is governed by the “Oligarchs”, the political and financial elites, with elected officials who represent not necessarily the interest of the people, but finance and special interests. In this case, it seems like they are using the UN as a geopolitical tool. 

At the same time, the US is the operational and Strategic Leader of NATO. While its original intention was to be a peace force, recent expansion into areas near the Russian borders has also turned them into an aggressor. Yes, it is for the sake of establishing a “peace” agreement with Turkey early on to be placed strategically at ports close to Russia, and yes the other Eastern European Countries asked to be part of NATO. With this in mind, this was a unilateral decision made by all, with the exception of Russia, who received no say. 

In the current European structure, the EU favors and willingly aligns with the US, as both seek the same benefits. Weak states or countries in the EU make it easier to install a central government, which is similar to the thought process in the US. But how does one make the central government more effective? So should we ask the question; Was having all European countries wholly aligned with the ineffective sanction on Russia the intended result in Europe this whole time? 

First off – Looking at all the Wars fought in the Name of Democracy; In what situation has it actually resulted in Democracy, peace, and improved relationships of the US with said States? Or improvement of the lives of the people in those countries? You will realize it is difficult to name one situation in which that was the case.

Second – we all enjoy the US as the System of freedom, democracy, and prosperity. But who has the say to aggressively impose the same values on other states, other than for geo-political purposes? People in Iran are still oppressed, and we are on standby while people roam the streets for freedom. 

Third – Nation Building has occurred over thousand of Years, with Switzerland objectively being the most direct democracy in the world in its current form. This of course came after fighting hundreds of wars to shape up in it’s current form. This was displayed as recently as 1979, when the people of the Region of Jura who wished to separate from Bern added another state. After plenty of formal debate concluded, the change was approved by a fair vote.

So, let’s put this in perspective. The Ukrainians are fighting a War for Democracy, which is essentially a proxy war for United States’ Geo – Political interests, to avoid an alignment with Germany – and further limit Russia’s emergence as a potential superpower. This leaves us with NATO (financed by the US) and the EU flexing a Centralized Power that is non-existent.

The Ukraine / Russia conflict dates back over 50 years and was only intensified in WWII, with the Bandera interests collaborating with the 3rd Reich. Some people say that was the better option than Stalin, on both the way in and out of the Invasion. However, the Allies may have suffered a much higher cost, or not won the Invasion if not for Russia crippling Adolf’s Army to pieces under the suffering of twenty-five million people. Yes, many Eastern European Countries have since joined NATO and enjoy a more democratic life, with the exception of Hungary who is now being singled out as a Fascist country because it does not bend to the socialist/centralized rulers of the EU. 

As long as Merkel was the German Chancelor, a Ukraine entry to NATO was always rejected, simply for the fact that Russia always (since 2008) strongly objected to having NATO Troops and Weapons installed in a neighboring state. 

The 2014 Maidan Coup, installing a pro-NATO “democracy” in Ukraine was a US lead Coup, covering Ukrainian atrocities in the Russian territories, which led to the “invasion” of Crimea. The CIA and Ukrainian underground forces continued the preparation for a Ukrainian Counter Offensive since the 2014 Coup, for Putin as a response to the 2021 agreement (Biden/Zelinsky) for an unconditional acceptance of the Ukraine into NATO, which resulted in Russian Aggression. Or perhaps the Afghanistan withdrawal was seen as US weakness? 

Circling back to the top, what is the US Strategic intent? With all the influence in South / Middle America, with which Country did we gain the trust to build an Alliance? Have we built a system that proposed democracy – we mostly send the Corporate Raiders – and the poor are all still poor? And Brazil with its newest affair with China? We rather bash Brazil’s current President as MAGA’ type and blame the influx of Migrants on Communist Venezuela. Does that seem logical? 

What is the unifying part in Europe, as the US claims? NATO alliance and Energy independence? Yes, they all accepted the US Sanction measures, as promised to end the War. Fact is, Europe is the big looser on the Sanctions, and Russia next to the US the big Winners? Yes, Finland and Sweden want to additionally join NATO, but those voices are quiet, especially since Sweden elected a more (as CNN would say) Fascist right wing governance? 

So perhaps the whole unifying rhetoric may be words, and the time window for the unified support may close as soon as Winter? 

So where does that leave the conflict, as the US from the top is claiming unconditional support for the Ukraine and is determined to claim military victory. 

So, if the Ukraine becomes victorious, are we assuming that Russia will collapse and as when Gorbachev bankrupted all the people, which led to the rise of Putin, the corporate raiders will come in again and try to undermine the sovereign of the Russian people? Probably not a good assumption, as the sanction have not deterred life in Russia and once the conflict is about Russia the resolve is much stronger. Or is the goal here to have all Russian speaking people in the Ukraine driven out and secure the Donbas / Crimea region? 

And what if the Ukrainian Border is re-established? Do we think Russia and its 140 million will be isolated? For that they have to many resources the world needs, like it or not? And if Putin gets ousted, is the believe like in the Maidan Coup, the US can install a Washington friendly puppet regime like the Shaw in Persia? 

As we discuss lots of issues with Iran and other totalitarian countries, are we so weak in negotiating, or have simply offended to many people too many times, that it will take a long time to re-establish good relations? 

Why in the world are we not negotiating a neutral Ukraine, why do they need to be NATO partners to be their own country? If we station a one million NATO Army directly in the Ukraine or its Western Border, would it make a difference in Russia aggression? So why is it not possible to let the people of Ukraine decide where to go? Some parts are undoubtedly more inclined to join Russia then the Ukraine? Or can the current administration, after the Afghanistan withdrawal, not afford another debacle, say loss in the Ukraine, so it appears that the Military solution, will last for a while. 

It would be worthwhile to negotiate, Russia has the greatest Landmass of all Countries globally, and the most natural resources. It also has demonstrated that it can suffer to its dead, and still lives on. So, considering all the facts, can someone ask for a dialogue for a resolution before the Ukraine has lost all its people? Fifteen million have already fled the country, more to come should Russia mobilize its Grand Army, which it certainly will if it feels unrecognized and threatened in its existence. 

Yes, we know since he came in Power, Putin is bad, so were all the Russian Leaders since Stalin, when the Russia Phobe became a US household word, and it has never left since?

Neutrality for Ukraine, or at least the Donbas region, no NATO troops or weapons in the Ukraine and start making Russia part of Europe, as it geo-strategically belongs there? 

All white creek articles are our personal opinion, no political agenda or position with any party. Our intent is to have people form their own opinion, but provide thoughts mainstream media may not offer