American Weapons to Ukraine: Beyond the Point of No Return

The crisis that is Ukraine has reached the boiling point, the point most sane people feared would arrive eventually.

The crucible that that country has become, it’s once again torn into shreds by familiar enemies of peace. We’ve arrived; the world that is, at the crossroads that may end up in total war.

News today from the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, and from Reuters to the LA Times reads; “Arm Kiev.” Well, at least it appears newspaper owners or their reporters, or the governmental press offices one, are all in favor of pressuring Russia until a real war breaks out.

For make no mistake, backed far, far back into a geostrategic corner, we all know what the Russian bear will do. Sending arms to the Poroshenko government from America, may just be an act of insanity.

Crazy or crafty, Washington is testing the waters of public opinion this time, over a boiling teakettle some say is about to burst out onto the rest of Europe.

I have to say here, following the “logic” of American and western policy over Ukraine is a bit like wandering the streets of Prague drunk. The cognizant person tends to feel lucky just finding the Danube, or the river that divides rhyme and reason of the west’s policies. Unless the end goal is a new Cold War that drains our last drop of economic future, rearming Kiev now is a very bad idea.

I imagine, aliens from outer space watching 1 million refugees flee Ukraine toward Russia foretells of choices other than the Obama administration’s directives on the matter. Just recently Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk signed a decree disallowing national ID travel in between Ukraine and Russia, a move some say was meant to keep those who would flee Ukraine inside.

And what if those same space aliens witnessed 12 months of eastward bound artillery strikes and cluster bombing attacks, onto schools, hospitals, and bus stations in places held by separatists?

Now that 100 Russian invasions announced by Kiev, parroted by the Washington and western media have proven false alarms, it seems there’s a “fool proof” plan to ensure the real one. Here’s the real situation now, for those not keeping up. At least here is a dissenting view on the situation you’ve been fed.

After months on end of continual bombardment onto Donetsk, and hundreds of breaches of the so-called “Minsk” agreement on ceasefire, the leaders of the self declared Donetsk and Lugansk Republics (DPR and LPR) balked at what appeared for them to be, a fake peace proposal in Minsk.

With no headway made whatever, and shells still falling on Donetsk’s civilians, the freedom fighters got enough. This is my view based on in country reports and constant communication with freelance journalists and citizens of the Donbass.

The whole affair seemed to come to a head when Reuters and other mainstream media announced Kiev forces had overrun Donetsk airport on January 18.

I read this report early on the morning of the supposed victory for the UAF, and was not surprised to find my contacts wandering around the battle zone with not a soul in sight.

The offensive from Kiev, it had been launched, but contrary to the reports elements of DPR forces had crushed the attackers. This was the biggest breach of the Minsk ceasefire to date, and the last one the pro-Russian republics of the east would suffer.

That day, and on the day following, a sort of punch and counter-punch occurred in between not only the combatants, but in the media, and in between governments involved. Kiev, then Washington, and later Brussels and London chimed in condemning Russia and the separatists.

Next, a projectile landing deep inside Donetsk, devastating a bus stop there, only so those arrayed against Russian speakers could once again blame the separatists, this time for trying to kill themselves. 

Across the street from the bus station hit, tanks and other equipment were being repaired for the counter-offensive. I assure you, most of what you see and read from the likes of BBC and the Washington Post, it lacks the credibility of presenting both sides. 

News today is not even news, it’s editorial presented as the truth, an rebroadcast across thousands of channels. Don’t take my word or the BBC’s, just follow the trail if dead women and children from Donetsk to the lines of refugees headed to Russia, and you’ll see who the aggressor really is.

All the BBC will show you are ghost tanks, make believe Russian legions, and imaginary Ukraine Army victories in Donbass. Here is the situation in Ukraine as of Tuesday.

(Click for full map: War in Donbass)

Now that I’ve painted a separatist or revolutionary view, perhaps the term “counter-offensive” will register credibly for the reader. You see, the forces of the DPR and LPR these last months, they’ve been desperately trying to hold onto their home territory.

As for Russian troops and weapons on the assist? I’m sure not many are even really worried there. Who would blame America for sending troops and planes to defend Texas from Mexico, or Montreal from Moscovites? The fact remains though, scarcely any of the Kiev or Washington assertions against these rebels hold any water at all. 

This has been a cold war of allegations and finger pointing from the west. Economic sanctions no one in Europe can afford, thousands of dead civilians, and hundreds of thousands of refugees are the evidence of an utterly disastrous US-West policy.

Now that the rebels are on the offensive, and with the Ukraine Armed Forces (UAF) on the run, Barack Obama’s administration is testing the public for an outcry, a cry for peace instead of another perpetual war. The reader may want to consider what anti-tank missiles to Kiev will mean in all this.

The New York Times dances about the debate over sending so-called “defensive weapons” to Poroshenko. As a journalist, reading the rhetorical is indicative of western propaganda at its best.

The “reluctance” of Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan E. Rice, is weighed against the likes of NATO’s commander, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, and a cadre of other advisers we all know have the same interest. After all, these are the makers of the policy line in the first place. And the line is an all out push toward Moscow until Putin surrenders.

Isn’t it clear, that this is what all this talk, news, and policy is about? The west’s effort to bring Ukraine into the EU failed. The US funded and backed (Obama admitted this the other day by accident) revolution called Euromaidan, it’s succeeded in destroying Ukrainian lives only.

The facts really are so transparent we’ve all known all along, this was about America NeoCons versus the Russians. We should have known the instant a powerful US Senator waved his flag in the center of Maidan Square in Kiev. Come on, none of us is really so stupid. I quote from the timeline of Euromaidan:

“Opposition party Batkivshchyna faction leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk called for…Approximately 2,000 people converged in the evening of 22 November on Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) to protest the decision of the Ukrainian government to suspend the process of integration of Ukraine into the European Union.”

Let me say here, the party of Yatsenyuk has a stated policy of ending the war on Donbass by force, a stated policy of wanting to belong with NATO, and is opposed to Russian as one of the official languages of Ukraine.

It is in the symbolism and reality of the last policy, the whole essence of conflict in the east resides. Language is, it is at the historic core of ethnic and individual identity, you see.

Imagine for a moment you’re in Texas, and Austin is overtaken by a Spanish speaking junta. Just because there are fewer Caucasians and blacks in the west of Texas, the new governor bans English.

Houston says “no” and secedes from Texas. Then, instead of negotiating, Austin and Mexico City start shelling Houston’s residential areas trying to blow up soldiers there. This is where we are, in a divided Texas, with Washington trying to help English speakers, only in reverse.

Yes, this is an over simplification. However, Barack Obama arming Kiev, ostensibly to expand NATO’s presence on the doorstep of Russia, this will lead to a simple disaster in international relations for decades to come.

If America and Russia are not already on a collision course with cataclysm, then escalating this “hot war” in Ukraine will seal the deal. Vladimir Putin, faced with losing Novorossiya, he’ll have no choice but to respond in kind. Isn’t this what he’s done all along?

Looking at the course of this crisis, it has been Putin who has reacted, rather than aggressively pushing back toward Washington. Russia should feel justified, if only for feeling they’re on the defensive. Arming Kiev with US weapons, to pull victory out of utter defeat, this will be America’s undoing of Europe.

In this CNN interview the other day, the American president slips and admits his administration "brokered a deal" to change Ukraine's leadership. If we examine his demeanor, and the arrogant posture he takes versus Putin in this interview, it's very clear the man is both a liar (and not in my opinion only) and unscrupulous, especially if you live in Russia.

Allow me to be clear as glass here. This president, if his Obamacare is repealed by Congress, will have sat in the Oval Office for no good reason whatever. A Nobel Peace Prize, untold taxpayer dollars and potential, will have effectively gone absolutely to waste because of this man.

Not only has Barack Obama accomplished nothing since entering office, his legacy will be to have set back black American leadership 100 years, to have flaunted any chance at real world peace, and having signed into being budgets that have crippled America's future.

Right now, without the continual borrowing of imaginary dollars, the United States would be a capital wasteland. For those with ears, listen to his latest war cry.

We have to ask ourselves the question; “What are we asking Vladimir Putin and Russia to do?” My question is, “when was the last time Russia surrendered on their own home ground?”

Can we really expect arming another questionable (for many) regime having a positive outcome? My country armed Iraq versus Iran, and Saddam Hussein later became the enemy. We invaded Iraq to set free the people there, they are not free of war yet.

Afghanistan was invaded to rid the country of the Taliban, but the Taliban are resurgent there after 14 years of killing. Arab Spring was largely at the behest of western governments, Gaddafi’s death was supposed to ring in a new era of democratic freedoms. Three and one half years later and Libyans are at war with one another still.

Barack Obama and his constituents played a vital role in all these conflicts. We don’t have to condemn our leaders as war criminals or idiots to see, their policies fail time and again. It’s also fair to say enacting exactly the opposite foreign policies of Washington may render better results. I believe Albert Einstein once described insanity as:

“Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

And there is my final argument in a nutshell. Either America’s leadership of the so-called “free world” is insane, or perpetual war is the desired end result of their policies. The battle over Ukraine, it illustrates this indelibly for me.

Expecting Russia to greet NATO missiles 250 miles from Moscow, is insane. The only rational for this policy I can think of is an effort to cover up some undiscovered catastrophe Obama and these other leaders have fraught for humanity.

This, or someone has called for a push for world domination versus Russia and China. Of course, this remains to be seen.