Op-Ed by Brandon Turbeville
As the United States Presidential Primaries are now in full swing, there is much talk about the future of the American-Ukraine-Russian entanglement. Should the United States be sending more assistance to Ukraine? Less? Are we moving fast enough? Should we be moving at all? These are the questions that are beginning to show the dividing lines in both parties between the anti-war and pro-war camps and, thus, the oligarchy’s approved candidates and those who are more outside the acceptable reins of modern politically established candidates.
I will remind my own readers that, in 2013, when the Obama administration overthrew the Yanukovich Presidency in Ukraine, I wrote numerous articles not only exposing the coup for what it was but also predicting that the color revolution in Ukraine would lead to a confrontation between the United States and Russia on the battlefield of Ukraine. I was criticized for not supporting the “freedom movement” in Ukraine that soon turned into ethnic conflict and civil war. I was then criticized for opposing American “assistance” to Ukraine in the form of money and weaponry as well as training and American military personnel. I was wrong, according to my critics, for not supporting the “underdog” against the alleged aggressor who was bigger and stronger. If only my critics had reacted logically instead of emotionally and in a woefully uninformed manner, perhaps public opinion would have opposed any involvement in Ukraine and much of the needless bloodshed would never have occurred.
That’s doubtful, of course, since public opinion alone rarely makes a difference when the Great Eating Machine is hungry and has decided to march forward with a pre-ordained plan of war or economic destruction.
The vindication I feel for being right in my assessment ten years prior is no match for the disappointment I feel at watching Ukrainians being slaughtered by Russians and other Ukrainians, for Russians being killed by Ukrainians, and for the distinct possibility that American service personnel may soon be experiencing the same fate. It does not make up for the very real threat of World War Three that will affect every man, woman, and child upon the planet this time around. It also does not make up for watching Americans insulted every day by the fact that billions of dollars are routinely shipped to Ukraine while their own country falls apart at the seams.
For those who are unaware of the true nature of the conflict in Ukraine as it currently stands, I would encourage you to search my website and find those articles from 2013. Everything is explained there and it will shed light on how we got to where we are at the moment.
But it is one thing to say “We never should have done that in the first place,” or “we shouldn’t have let it get this far.” The fact of the matter is we did overthrow the Ukrainian government. We did assist in the arming of militias who engaged in ethnic warfare. We did break up a struggling country that is virtually beyond repair as a whole nation. We did arm Ukraine. We are currently still pushing for Ukraine to join NATO as well as to destabilize and break up Russia.
It is also one thing to oppose war and destabilization but another to offer a legitimate end to the war that does not involve further violence, collapse, or worsening of living conditions for all parties involved. Being opposed to bad outcomes is half the battle but supporting positive outcomes is the other half.
So what do we do from here?
First, a few points must be understood in order to achieve a lasting peace in Ukraine between the United States, Russia, China, Europe, and, of course, Ukraine.
US Culpability In The War In Ukraine
It must be understood that the United States launched a color revolution in Ukraine that overthrew the president and sent the country into a tailspin of destabilization. The United States encouraged, armed, and facilitated militias to crack down on opposition to the administration that the Anglo-American bloc imposed upon the Ukrainian people and resulted in ethnic tensions, violence, and murder against ethnic Russians and East Ukrainians. The United States and Europe have pushed for Ukraine to join NATO, something Russia repeatedly stated it would not stand for as it would push a blatantly anti-Russian coalition right up to the borders of Russia. There were talks of arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons and there were the clear evidence of American bioweapons labs functioning in Ukraine. All this came as members of the Obama administration and numerous military-industrial complex think tanks wrote openly about the destruction and breakup of Russia as a nation. The United States and European countries have provided political and military support, billions and billions of dollars, weapons, and even troops to aid Ukraine in its war against Russia. The West has sanctioned Russia repeatedly, dealing multiple blows to its economy. This is not to mention the crisis in Syria where Russians and Americans/NATO nations are also in danger of direct conflict with one another and who’s goals once again stand stark opposite to one another.
Putin Is A Rational Actor
Despite attempts by Western media outlets to paint Vladmir Putin as the next Hitler (or the next Stalin), a crazed fascist or crazed communist, or simply a madman, the truth is that Putin is an entirely rational actor. At every turn, Putin has shown willingness to negotiate, cooperate, and compromise for the greater goals of peace and security of Russia. This has been and continues to be the case, despite hysterical Western media propaganda.
While Western media and Western governments claim to have no idea what Putin wants in Ukraine, beyond hysterical theories of conquering Europe and the world or uncontrolled mental illness, the truth is that Russia has made its interests clear the entire time. Russia has repeatedly stated that it will not stand for NATO being pushed up to its borders. It also has refused to sit idly by while attacks against ethnic Russians in East Ukraine take place on a regular basis.
There is a distinct and important difference between legitimate European interests and European goals. Currently, European goals are locked in tight with those of the United States, which is essentially the use of Ukraine in order to further an anti-Russian agenda. However, European interests are, without a doubt, better served by friendly, cooperative, and peaceful relations with Russia. Europe is not served by an aggressive (or aggressed) Russia, nor is it served by a Russia that feels threatened. Europe is best served by a Russia that is assured it is not threatened by European countries and that is also certain that Europe is prepared to prevent and defend against aggressive invasion or untoward attempts at influence over the various nations. Europe also needs Russian energy and cooperation on the international stage.
Much like Europe, the United States’ goals are much different than its interests. Aside from geographical location, it is almost more important for the United States to have peaceful, cooperative relations with Russia. Two of the worlds largest countries, most formidable militaries, and nuclear powers simply cannot collide without immense ramifications for the entire world. The United States should find cooperation with Russia vital, especially on issues such as the war on terror, global balance in terms of international relations, and the battle for national sovereignty against globalism, free trade, and cultural destabilization that is currently destroying the United States as it is the bulk of Europe. Peace and cooperation between the United States and Russia is vital to reducing conflict across the world. As with Europe, Russia should not be made to feel threatened by US global power, nor should the US be threatened by Russian influence or military power.
Need For Cooperation
There is no solution for the conflict in Ukraine without cooperation between the United States/Europe and Russia. At least, there is no solution that does not involve greater loss of life, greater war, or the complete destruction of Ukraine.
The threat of direct conflict between Russia and the United States is becoming less and less of a deterrent for both sides. In fact, it is increasingly being seen as a foregone conclusion. Yet, it remains one of the greatest threats to the world. Arming Ukraine has not defeated the Russians and continued warfare has yet to defeat the Ukrainians (for now). The United States, Europe, Ukraine, and Russia all have interests at play in this conflict that must be acknowledged and protected. Cooperation is the only way to achieve peace through enlightened self-interest.
While the pro-war side pitches the idea that there is no peace in Ukraine outside the complete and utter defeat of Russia, such an idea not only inaccurate, it is dangerous.
At least two Republican candidates and one Democrat have espoused a legitimate understanding of a need for a peace deal in Ukraine and have also expressed minor detail about how a deal would be brokered. Of course, Donald Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. were immediately attacked as heretics, Russian agents, and defeatists for doing so.
Trump has repeatedly stated that he could end the war in 24 hours, though he has been less forthcoming on the details of how. But, much to the consternation of Western media, he is right. There is a way to end the war in 24 hours. Below, I will detail a peace proposal that would likely bring the war to a halt to the benefit of all parties – Russia, Ukraine, Europe, and the United States. I am doing so in hopes that politically influential individuals may view it and put it in to practice or that a groundswell of public support for an end to the war will then have its demands readily available to it and thus will not be a typical rudderless mass protest.
It should be pointed out that the proposal below should be viewed as an agreement between Russia and the United States. Europe must come along for its own sake but it may not desire to do so. I will also discuss possible contingencies if any party does not want to participate in the proposal.
The plan is as follows:
1.) The Donbass region of Ukraine will be ceded to Russia to be considered Russian territory. Without sinking under the weight of an attempt to describe the history of Ukraine, suffice it to say that Eastern Ukrainian culture (specifically the Donbass region) is historically Russian in culture. Add to this the ten-year conflict between East and West Ukraine that has degenerated into ethnic warfare and slaughter, it is apparent that the country of Ukraine has become so divided culturally that the chances of peaceful reintegration of East and West Ukraine into one nation without continued internal violence are slim to none. Donbass has repeatedly shown itself comfortable with integrating and becoming part of Russia proper. This is not the creation of an ethnic microstate. This part of the proposal should be viewed as the reunification of ethnically and culturally Russian people with one another. Of course, those non-ethnic Russians should be guaranteed equal rights and protections as ethnic Russians.
2.) Official recognition of Donbass as Russian territory. There must be a formal declaration and recognition of the Donbass as part of Russia.
3.) Official recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. Like Donbass, there must be a formal declaration and recognition of the Donbass as part of Russia.
4.) Russian forces must draw back from areas that are outside Donbass. This includes areas in East Ukraine that are not part of Donbass. While Donbass must be recognized as part of Russia, Russia is not entitled to West Ukraine or areas outside of Donbass. Areas outside of Donbass, both East and West, are to be recognized by all participants as the sovereign nation of Ukraine.
5.) Official recognition of areas outside of Donbass as the sovereign nation of Ukraine. This must be a formal declaration and recognition by all participants, including Russia, of Ukraine as a sovereign nation whose borders adhere to the description above (Ukrainian territory that is not part of the Donbass region).
6.) Written agreement that Ukraine will not join NATO. The United States, Europe, Ukraine, and NATO must agree in writing, signed together with Russia, that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. Formal attempts at “timelines” and “paths” to Ukrainian membership in NATO must then be rescinded and abandoned.
7.) Russia will agree that Ukraine will be free from Russian invasion, intimidation, coercion, or undo political influence. Russia must ensure, for its part, that empire and conquest is not part of its foreign policy when it comes to Ukraine. It must agree that Ukraine, as defined by the borders previously agreed to, is safe from Russian invasion, intimidation, coercion, or attempts to manipulate its government.
8.) Ukraine and Russia agree to a prisoner swap of official military personnel, intelligence agents, militia members, contractors, and civilians. Both Ukraine and Russia must agree to release prisoners of war (loosely defined). This will include regular military personnel, intelligence agents, contractors, and civilians. While much has been made of the political ideology of the Ukrainian militias, there must be no definition as some prisoners being beyond traditional prisoners of war. All must be returned without preconditions.
9.) Upon fulfillment of the agreement described above, all sanctions imposed upon and by the United States and Russia as a result of the conflict of Ukraine going back to 2013, will be lifted. This agreement will not include those imposed as a result of the Syrian crisis or other conflicts. This removal of sanctions will include those imposed on Russia by the United States and upon the United States by Russia. It will include sanctions upon the governments, business, and individuals and will function as a reset in regards to the Ukrainian question.
10.) An agreement between the United States and Russia to begin the process of normalizing diplomatic relations such as but not limited to, restoring diplomatic offices, diplomats, military to military conversations in conflict zones, and direct talks between heads of state. It is both infantile and dangerous that two of the world’s most effective militaries and nuclear powers do not maintain fully functioning diplomatic and official communications. Russia and the United States must agree to restore any diplomatic offices, positions, and communications that have been stopped or interrupted as a result of any disagreements between the two countries, including over Syria or other issues. In Syria, military to military communications must resume as well as the “deconfliction channel.” Direct communications between the President of the United States and the President of Russia must resume.
11.) An agreement between the United States and Russia to begin, at the Executive and diplomatic levels, discussions regarding the placement of nuclear weapons by both countries (in Belarus, Romania, nuclear subs, etc), weapons shields, American forces on Russian borders, Russian troops in South and central America, cooperation in the international war on terror, the Nord Stream Pipeline, and Syria. There need be no more detail in this agreement. It is not an agreement on the specifics but merely an agreement to discuss issues that both countries find threatening and important. Both countries have legitimate complaints and this is merely an acknowledgement and recognition that both concerns will be discussed between the two parties in good faith.
12.) European countries and Russia agree to lift all sanctions imposed on one another as a result of the conflict over Ukraine. This means sanctions that European nations have imposed upon Russia and those that Russia has imposed upon Europe. Neither Russia nor the Europeans benefit from sanctions and hostile neighbors.
13.) European countries and Russia agree to Russian gas shipments to Europe at fair market prices. This should merely be seen as agreement that Russian gas is now for sale to European markets. This is not a requirement that said gas is purchased.
14.) Russia and Ukraine agree to eliminate sanctions imposed on one another as a result of the conflict. Much harm and ill will has been created as a result of the war between Russia and Ukraine. Armed conflict is not the only act of war. Indeed, sanctions have long been viewed as an act of war in and of themselves since they are a form of embargo. Russia and Ukraine are ending the war, so the war must be ended. For this reason, both countries must agree to eliminate sanctions imposed on one another since 2013 and the ouster of the Yanukovych government.
15.) Russia and Ukraine agree to establish diplomatic relations befitting nations not at war with one another. Much like the agreement between the United States and Russia, Russia and Ukraine must development and restore official diplomatic communications with one another. This includes formal diplomacy, diplomats, diplomatic offices and peer to peer communications. Russia and Ukraine are neighbors and a refusal to communicate formally is foolish.
Naturally, there will be resistance to this proposal by pro-war and globalist parties so the mere introduction of a peace plan will not necessarily guarantee all participants are willing to make strides toward peace. Thus, there must be repercussions if the fate of the world is put in jeopardy by globalist interests.
For its part, Ukraine must be made to understand that it has no choice but to negotiate. If it refuses to do so, it must be left to its own devices. No longer will foreign countries fight and die to the last American. If Europe wishes to commit to Ukraine, then Europe will also have to fight Russia on its own. It should be made clear that, if Ukraine and Europe do not participate, the United States-Russia aspect of the peace plan will go ahead as planned and that whatever the outcome Ukraine and/or Europe find will be determined without the involvement of the United States.
If Russia, refuses to negotiate and indicates that it indeed wishes simply to conquer more territory for the sake of empire, it should be made aware that the United States will please its Military Industrial Complex by sending high-tech weapons, heavy weaponry, and whatever is required (short of American service personnel) to create, at best, an unwinnable quagmire for Russia.
In truth, only the Europeans would likely pose a problem of resistance to peace, since emotional political grandstanding is the order of the day in Modern Europe and since Europe collectively has bought in to the anti-Russian, globalist order. The United States exerts incredible amounts of influence over Ukraine and Russia, for its part, has repeatedly demonstrated that it is a rational actor, always ready to discuss conflict and negotiate for peace.
This proposal offers the Russians the best possibility of peaceful, productive relations with the United States ever offered. Only if the Western media is correct that Putin is a madman hell-bent on the complete conquering of Ukraine before Europe and the rest of the world would he reject it. The United States has a vested interest in ending the war from a strategic, diplomatic, and domestic viewpoint. Ukraine obviously needs a swift end to the war and Europe benefits nothing from a hostile Russia. There is no sane reason for all parties not to agree to this proposal as it ensures the respect of the interests of all parties involved.
For those activists still operating out there, remember, it’s election season. Without weighing ourselves down into the political platforms of each individual candidate or the morass that is politics in general, it is nonetheless important to understand that we have a unique opportunity to take advantage of the current Primary elections to reach politically aware and unaware individuals paying attention to their various anti-war candidates in order to educate, inform, and join forces in order to defeat the war machine threatening to destroy our country as well as the rest of the world in the process.
It is thus important for those of good will to capitalize on this increased political activity to insert rational platform policies and solutions into the debate and into the minds of the general public.
Brandon Turbeville is a journalist and author. He is the author of ten books, including Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1500 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, civil liberties and, most notably, geopolitics and the Syrian crisis. His most recent release is a book of poetry, Dance, Amputee. Brandon also hosted a radio show for three years which was called Truth on The Tracks. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com. You can contact him through his website.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.