Pat Buchanan exposes the real problem with Obama’s policy towards Ukraine and Russia

U.S. President Obama finally delivered what neocons wanted, isolation of Russia and a deep division between Russia from Europe. The only moves left now are to wipe out (i.e. ethnically cleanse) the East of Ukraine and then move NATO in, before committing to phase two of the neocon wet dream, the destruction of the entire Russian Federation.

We are sure that the neocon / Obama plan will go off without a hitch as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Iran before it. Fortunately some Americans still understand how the world works and how history punishes the stupid and feeble minded.

Pat Buchanan penned a piece for AntiWar.com which deserves some serious attention by all those in the western world eager to turn a U.S. led coup in Ukraine into a full out world war.

Some highlights of the posts include…

Buchanan noting that even in the Soviet Union’s darkest days, U.S. Presidents (true leaders of a once great nation) kept the lines of communication open to their Russian counterparts, understanding that no matter what was happening during the cold war, the consequences of conflict between the powers was unthinkable:

From FDR on, U.S. presidents have felt that America could not remain isolated from the rulers of the world’s largest nation.

Ike invited Khrushchev to tour the USA after he had drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood. After Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba, JFK was soon calling for a new detente at American University.

Within weeks of Warsaw Pact armies crushing the Prague Spring in August 1968, LBJ was seeking a summit with Premier Alexei Kosygin.

After excoriating Moscow for the downing of KAL 007 in 1983, that old Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan was fishing for a summit meeting.

The point: Every president from FDR through George H. W. Bush, even after collisions with Moscow far more serious than this clash over Ukraine, sought to re-engage the men in the Kremlin.

Whatever we thought of the Soviet dictators who blockaded Berlin, enslaved Eastern Europe, put rockets in Cuba and armed Arabs to attack Israel, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 all sought to engage Russia’s rulers.

Avoidance of a catastrophic war demanded engagement.

Buchanan actually understands geo-politics and foreign policy and its refreshing to read a sane western perspective for once. Perhaps the New York Times of Business Insider could take a break from jerking off Washington for just a second to do some critical thinking and good reporting, and just maybe reach some of the logical conclusions that Buchanan presents.

As much as it hurts the world to admit it, Putin’s actions were every bit predictable given the moves made by Obama and his neocon masters.

How then can we explain the clamor of today’s U.S. foreign policy elite to confront, isolate, and cripple Russia, and make of Putin a moral and political leper with whom honorable statesmen can never deal?

What has Putin done to rival the forced famine in Ukraine that starved to death millions, the slaughter of the Hungarian rebels or the Warsaw Pact’s crushing of Czechoslovakia?

In Ukraine, Putin responded to a U.S.-backed coup, which ousted a democratically elected political ally of Russia, with a bloodless seizure of the pro-Russian Crimea where Moscow has berthed its Black Sea fleet since the 18th century. This is routine Big Power geopolitics.

And though Putin put an army on Ukraine’s border, he did not order it to invade or occupy Luhansk or Donetsk. Does this really look like a drive to reassemble either the Russian Empire of the Romanovs or the Soviet Empire of Stalin that reached to the Elbe?

As for the downing of the Malaysian airliner, Putin did not order that. Sen. John Cornyn says U.S. intelligence has not yet provided any “smoking gun” that ties the missile-firing to Russia.

Intel intercepts seem to indicate that Ukrainian rebels thought they had hit an Antonov military transport plane.

Yet, today, the leading foreign policy voice of the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain, calls Obama’s White House “cowardly” for not arming the Ukrainians to fight the Russian-backed separatists.

It still amazes me that after Iraq WMDs and Syria’s sarin gas false flag, much of the world actually believes Washington’s parade of lies presented via social media. Yes the entire world is on the brink of disaster because everyone believes in the State Department’s social media bag of evidence…it is really absolutely breathtaking, for which Buchanan reminds us:

On August 1, 1991, just four months before Ukraine declared its independence of Russia, George H. W. Bush warned Kiev’s legislature:

“Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”

In short, Ukraine’s independence was never part of America’s agenda. From 1933 to 1991, it was never a U.S. vital interest. Bush I was against it.

When then did this issue of whose flag flies over Donetsk or Crimea become so crucial that we would arm Ukrainians to fight Russian-backed rebels and consider giving a NATO war guarantee to Kiev, potentially bringing us to war with a nuclear-armed Russia?

And while it sounds oh so cool for Journalists like Business Insider’s Michael B Kelley to beat the war drum and act all manly for his Washington overlords, we are positive that he would be the first to run, hide and cry like a baby if war ever did come knocking on his door, as would most U.S. Congressmen, who would have no problem sending young NATO men to die as canon fodder for a country that America should really not give a piss about.

But suppose Putin responded to the arrival of U.S. weapons in Kiev by occupying Eastern Ukraine. What would we do then?

John Bolton has the answer: Bring Ukraine into NATO.

Translation: The U.S. and NATO should go to war with Russia, if necessary, over Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea, though no U.S. president has ever thought Ukraine itself was worth a war with Russia.

What motivates Putin seems simple and understandable. He wants the respect due a world power. He sees himself as protector of the Russians left behind in his “near abroad.” He relishes playing Big Power politics. History is full of such men.

He allows U.S. overflights to Afghanistan, cooperates in the P5+1 on Iran, helped us rid Syria of chemical weapons, launches our astronauts into orbit, collaborates in the war on terror and disagrees on Crimea and Syria.

Perhaps its time for America and West Europe to reflect upon the lessons learned in Iraq, Syria, and Libya and understand that Ukraine is not worth a hot war with Russia, especially since all we have to go on are puppet reporters from puppet publications peddling social media as hard evidence.

The problem is not Putin, it is Washington.

References:

http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2014/07/24/is-putin-worse-than-stalin/