Congress to reverse its stand on Ukraine?

By Andrej Kreutz

Adjunct Professor, University of Calgary

Affiliated Expert, European Geopolitical Forum

During the last year, on December 4, 2014 and on March 24, 2015, the US Congress adopted two resolutions very hostile to Russia. The well-known former Republican Congressmen Ron Paul called the first of them, H.Res.758, a declaration of war on Russia and “one of the worst pieces of legislation ever.”1 The second resolution, which was adopted on March 24, shortly after the conclusion of the Minsk-2 Agreement, calls for arming Ukraine, and according to the Ron Paul Institute it made clear that, “Congress wants a war in Ukraine and will not settle for a ceasefire.”2

As both resolutions are constitutionally not binding and the Presidential administration does not have to implement them, they do not represent a direct threat. However, they are still important and significant political statements and, I believe, what is most worrisome is that the Congress in fact followed the general mood prevailing in the country, which is shared not only by the ruling elites and special interest groups, but also by the majority of Americans. According to the recent Gallup public opinion poll, most of them perceive the Russian Federation as the major national threat, worse than North Korea, China, or Iran.

That would mean that any broad-based peace movement (like others in American history, which have sometimes even been effective) would be quite difficult or perhaps impossible to set in motion. The public opinion of the country is now largely formatted by PR efforts, and due to a number of causes — including the decline of the traditional well-educated and politically-involved middle class, and the perfection of the means of social and political influence, including stricter control of the school and university curriculum — the chances of creating a social movement on the pattern of the 1950s and 1960s are very low.

At the same time, I do not want to say that public opinion is no longer important. Andrew Korybko rightly indicates that the deep state is far more important in the American foreign policy-making process than elected officials, and in fact a similar situation also prevails in many other traditionally liberal-democratic nations. However, even authoritarian governments have to take into account the social mood in their countries, and some social groups are far more influential than others.

The Russian Federation does not currently threaten any important US interests, and cooperation with Moscow as a more or less equal, or at least tolerated, partner might be quite advantageous for Washington in Asia, the Middle East, and even in Europe. If a wide-scale public mobilization is not in the cards, then business people, intellectuals and other experts who support such a view might be more likely to be heard and make an impact.

The deep state and the media’s anti-Russian campaign is to a large extent caused by the belief that America, boosted by its ABM development, could win a nuclear war with Russia. Some influential people put their trust in the US missile defense system, the European extension of which is currently being deployed practically on Russia’s borders. Some others think that by its first pre-emptive strike the US can hit Russia so hard that Russia would not be either able or even willing to retaliate in fear of a second blow and total destruction. The vast collateral damage entailed and the impact of such a horrible operation on the Old Continent does not seem to be taken into account. The likely impact on North America, too, has hardly ever been mentioned.

An open discussions of all these and related challenges would be the most effective form of pro-peace activity, and experts in the fields of nuclear physics and nuclear energy can play a leading and the most needed social role. With recent indications showing that Russia is preparing for a potential nuclear war and the bombshell news that Russia has developed electronic warfare technology that leaves the US military virtually deaf, dumb, blind and defenseless, we see some dire warnings and other key information coming out to support the idea that World War III is on our doorstep.

Lord Jacob Rothschild recently warned that the global “geopolitical situation is perhaps as dangerous as any we have faced since World War II.” There is chatter about the Ukrainian Maidaneks obtaining second passports and Canadian citizenship,  preparing to retreat as they will no longer be of use to the West. And now Daniel Estulin, author of The True Story of the Bilderberg, informs us in a video that the US and Britain are willing to “massively escalate the confrontation with Russia up to the threshold of a thermonuclear war.” It is clear that we are at our most dangerous time in history.

According to Mr. Estulin, President Barack Obama is attempting to orchestrate a regime change to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the US and Britain have “reactivated a policy of threatening tactical nuclear warfare against Russia and China to force them to submit to the crumbling transatlantic financial empire.”

In August 2014, Putin spoke at a youth forum where he sent out a very clear warning when he stated, “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations. This is a reality, not just words.” (Source – CNN)

In late November 2014 and again in January 2015, reports showed that Russia has also been preparingeconomically by stockpiling vast quantities of gold in their vaults. As we watch Putin strengthen political ties with BRIC nations, and China specifically, while the US “decimates” its own military and weakens the US dollar, it becomes apparent once again that pitting a community organizer (Obama) against a former KGB mastermind (Putin) is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

This is going to get ugly.

1 Ron Paul, “Reckless Congress Declares War on Russia,” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, December 4, 2014.

2 Daniel McAdams, “Congress Demands War in Ukraine,” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, March 23, 2015.

One thought on “Congress to reverse its stand on Ukraine?”

  1. Although Republican presidential contender Ben Carson has made opposition to Putin his number one priority in terms of foreign affairs, it stems in large part from his love affair with the outdated work of Skousen and can not be taken seriously. What appears to have had more influence on the standoff over Ukraine is the collusion of the Clinton Foundation with the oligarchs who let Monsanto into the country. As we both know, Putin has a zero-tolerance policy for genetically modified agriculture and GMO foods in general. His words to the oligarchs during escalating tensions were: “If you don’t stop Monsanto, we will.” Since Ukraine was historically the bread basket of the former Soviet Union, it is no wonder that Monsanto wants access, and, according to a tranche of diplomatic cables provided by Wikileaks, the U.S. government made a commitment to causing pain for those countries that did not welcome Monsanto. Viewed in light of these facts, the conflict might take a turn for the worse if Hillary Clinton is elected.

    However, America is currently divided between extreme Islamophobia and the deeply desperate desire for a peace dividend that would redress our income inequality, child poverty, etc.

    While America is no longer acclimated toward a 60’s-style peace movement, we should be encouraged by social media campaigns that brought about the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Democrat movements. There is also a newer movement called “The Demoratic Spring,” which plans to march on Washington in April of 2016. Unlike the Cold War generation, America’s youth today has no enmity for the Russian Federation and is neither supportive of Monsanto nor Hillary Clinton.

    In sum, our youths are politically savvy and active. If the matter of Ukraine is not whitewashed, there is a very good chance that American admiration of Putin’s leadership in fighting international terrorism will far outweigh the likelihood of starting a war with Russia due to simple greed.

Leave a Reply