EU farming policies coming to USA.

 GOVERNMENTS LUST AFTER CONTROL OF FOOD

TOTAL CONTROL OF THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE IS THEIR GOAL

Most of the European community is plagued by farmer protests and possibly a boycott of farming in general. This is all a reaction to outlandish rules regulating farmers that make it near impossible to engage in profitable business. Much of it is supposedly based on environmental rules that are supposed to save the planet. It is much more for the desire to control all the necessities of life. 

In the U.S. we see more regulations about the keeping of chickens for personal use and the plan to force all those who have chickens to register the fact with the government. We can only assume that the regulations will lead to rules that will make keeping chickens impractical. While we can assume corporate growers will welcome the loss of competition and likely support all such legislation, in the end it is all a part of the increasing lust for control by all governments in the western world, even if it contributes to their own demise. The cost of food and energy in the European community has skyrocketed with no end in sight, I expect they will soon find the need for more regulation in response to food shortages.

Most of the western world has been able to take control of most manufacturing through regulation. The other effect is the loss of the ability to manufacture in most western countries.The government in effect designs most products, like automobiles, through regulations that add cost, complexity and hopefully in their opinion, the end of private transportation as we know it.  The forced move through subsidies and regulation to electric vehicles is a good example and is creating a crisis in the auto sector that may soon require a government bailout and we can assume more control.

For some time food and energy have been the last two sectors not completely controlled by the government. We have seen the government policies raise the cost of energy and we are seeing the same with food. An increasing attack on the production of food through regulation is ongoing. Big farmers who are often willing to submit in exchange for government favors and who can provide big donations can easily be controlled by government, small independent farmers and growers not so easy. Big government always favor big corporation rather unruly independent individuals.

In my area a large number continue to subsidize and back up their heating with wood. We have seen the attempt to force design changes to wood burners that have raised the cost of the most basic device to very high prices. Does anyone doubt that just the burning of wood will soon be in the sights of big government? Can you imagine the outrage that such burning facilitates heat without tax or control. 

While all these increased regulations will lead to shortages, higher prices and most likely more chaos and crisis, I am sure we will be bewildered by the convoluted remedies that these out of touch governments will offer as a solution. 

EU polls reveal priorities of voters are at odds with most leaders.

 DEMOCRACY IS BEING TESTED IN THE WESTERN WORLD

MOST LEADERS OUT OF TOUCH

Interesting polls conducted by Euronews should make most leaders feeling a little unease at the least. It is obvious, just as in the U.S., leaders and government elite are often miles apart in their priorities.

Below are the priorities of the citizens across the EU.

1. Rising prices          68%     82% in Greece  lower numbers in Scandinavia.

2. Social protection    64%

3. Economic growth   62%

4. Illegal immigration 59%

5. Unemployment       57%

6. Climate change       52%

7. Common EU army  47%

8. Aid to Ukraine          36%

9. Minority protection  32%

It seems these numbers were consistent across most of Western Europe and I would expect they would be similar here in the U.S. I also expect that these are not the most important priorities of the entrenched bureaucracy in most of the western world. We must understand that they are enlightened and know what is best for the rest.

It again shows that individuals and families everywhere have concerns that are much more based in the realities of everyday life rather than the dreams of those who gravitate to government positions. 

Democracy will indeed be tested in the coming years by seeing if the representatives of people are representing the people or the government bureaucracy and those with the most financial incentives.

A wise man or nation knows its limitations.

 THREATS AND ESCALATION WILL NOT END UKRAINE WAR

IS EUROPE REALLY WILLING TO GO TO WW3?

Is peace in Ukraine getting closer to becoming reality or more distant? Have all the promises and predictions made to Ukraine and to the NATO members that Russia would not fight, that it was too weak, that there would be a revolt, really look more possible than it did two years ago?

Does France really believe that if it sends troops to Ukraine, it will scare Russia into begging for peace? Is France ready to back up its token force when the body bags start coming home? Same for Poland and Latvia, pounding the war drums, reliving the abuses of the Soviet Union in an attempt to muster support. This is a repeat of the delusional thinking that precedes catastrophe.  Wise men and nations do know their limitations.

The Ukraine war has resulted in high prices, shortages and increased division both in Europe and the U.S.. Europe's economies are struggling and yet they now plan to construct a bigger military. Is that really going to happen? The domestic environment in Europe is simmering, much of it a result of this stupid commitment to NATO expansion. You can expect the defeat of many politicians in the coming elections.

As for Russia, the popular support for this war has now hardened, there will be no peace in Ukraine's favor. The sentiment is now to get this affair over with at any cost, rather than the slow deliberate process of draining Ukraine and NATO of men and resources. Ukraine is running out of soldiers and NATO is running out of equipment. Maybe another $300 billion and rebuilding the Ukraine military for next year is not a good idea.

Is Ukraine and its future more promising now than it was 2 years ago? It will be decades before it has any future, if ever. Maybe they should keep listening to the likes of Lindsey Graham and conscript more men and girls to keep fighting, as long as Russians are dying it is well worth it. 

Maybe if Ukraine would actually hold elections, the people of Ukraine would have a say rather than Washington politicians.

Every day that this war continues the hope for the people of Ukraine is dying along with its youth. Are the people of Europe now ready to add their youth to this catastrophe, if not, they better change direction soon.

Moscow attack, Islamists yes, Jihadists maybe not.

 MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MOSCOW TERROR

RUSSIA WILL HAVE ANSWERS SOON

This weekend terror attack in Moscow may have been the worst, so far, in 2024. The result has been the death of 139 concert goers so far. There has already been lots of information revealed about this attack. 

It seems 2 of the suspects had been in Moscow for some time the other 2 have recently entered Russia via Turkey. So far 11 have been arrested in Russia, one yesterday for providing housing to the attackers.

It is reported that 40 of the victims died of gunshots, the others from the result of the fire and smoke. The shooters were in the building 11 minutes. They attempted to make their escape in the same car that they arrived in. Russian authorities were able to track the perpetrators and apprehended them just before they were to cross the border into Ukraine.

ISIS K a group that seems to be headquartered in the border area of Afghanistan and Pakistan claimed responsibility for the attack. A Jihadist attack is usually a suicide mission that continues until they are killed at the scene and often attempts to shoot as many as possible. It is usually connected to some goal or response to some action. At present Russia is not involved in any middle east actions. It would seem that there would be many other priorities other than Russia.

The U.S. issued a denial of responsibility and that of Ukraine in less than hour of the attack.

The U.S. had warned of such a possible attack early in March.

It seems the Russians have retrieved all the communications devices of these suspects. There are reported 40 arrests made in Turkey in connection with these suspects.

It has been reported that the suspects have claimed they were paid to carry out this attack. As to the source of the payments, that is as yet not revealed or known.

One could understand that Russia would be suspicions of any attacks placed on there territory in the present situation. The fact that they have the suspects alive and now many of the collaborators, it can be assumed that all the true facts will be revealed eventually.

Update on the Brief history of Russia, U.S. relations part 7.

 

U.S., RUSSIA RELATIONS POST WW2 PART 7

COLD WAR INTENSIFIES

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, U.S. and the Russian Federation had nearly 20 years of relatively good relations. There were many agreements on nuclear arms reduction, missile defense systems, joint space venture etc. These relations were conducted between George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush 2 and Barack Obama. Their Russian counterparts were Michael Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin.

They cooperated on international terrorism and criminal activity, AIDS, and humanitarian issues. Russia was concerned about U.S. involvement in the former Yugoslavia. Russia supported the first gulf war but opposed the invasion of Iraq, but abstained from voting against the U.S. in the U.N.. Russia complained, without taking any action, about the expansion of NATO. The U.S. complained about Russia's action in Chechnya and Georgia, which has a lot to do with Islamic terrorism on their southern border.

One of the Russian Federation's primary goals after the dissolution of the Soviet Union was to be admitted into International organizations on trade, economics etc. They were a permanent member of the U.N. since its founding, but there seemed to be a reluctance by the U.S. to accept them as an influential member of the world community.

While the U.S. has over 200 years of managing a democratic Republic, the Russians have 25 years of transitioning to self government. There were, and still are, many in the state department who would rather keep Russia isolated and contained. This was the objective in the expansion of NATO. It may be that Vladimir Putin began to see that the policy of the west may be to never accept Russia on equal terms, unless they completely submit to the west. This would be in all things, culturally, as well as economically, and a much diminished military capacity.  It is understandable that there is a fear of a strong economically prospering Russia, but in the long run can containment result in a positive outcome. Constructive engagement was a term that could possibly yield a positive result.

The Ukraine and the European community had been negotiating cooperation and possible membership since the mid 1990's. There were a lot of hurdles to accomplish this. The EU wanted more human rights, and a stronger legal system among other things. The Ukraine's exports to Russia were over 50% of their economy, much of this generated from the ethnic Russian eastern part of the country. They have many co-operative defense manufacturing agreements, all this was complicated by the EU insistence that if they entered into a free trade agreement with Ukraine, the Ukraine could not be in a free trade agreement with Russia. 

The Ukraine was almost entirely dependent on Russia for its energy, mostly natural gas. There was perception that the EU and the U.S. wanted to peel the Ukraine away from the Russian Federation. In 2014 there was a revolution in the Ukraine, President Victor Yanukovych and the parliament were dissolved. This was supported by billions of dollars from Washington to foster democracy in the Ukraine. 

The western part of Ukraine was determined to join the EU and was also inclined to join NATO. Eastern Ukraine is mostly a Russian population. Russia did not object to the joining of the EU, but was vehemently against the expansion of NATO right on their border. There was even talk of  replacing the Russian Fleets Naval base in Sevastopol, Crimea with a NATO Naval base. This is not likely to ever happen peaceably.  This led to the Russian occupation of the Crimea. There was a referendum held in the Crimea and they voted 97% to become incorporated into the Russian Federation. The Ukraine was outraged, the West declared the vote illegal and sanctions were leveled by the West on Russia. The Eastern Ukraine erupted in fighting with 2 areas claiming independence. A pew poll taken shortly after the referendum in Crimea found that 91% believe the referendum was free and fair. Also 88% believed Ukraine should recognize the results.

The Ukrainian, Crimean, Russian conflict is a complicated situation. It seems the West is determined to push Russia farther away from the community of nations. The fact that the U.S. and the West has intervened to control the events in Ukraine's politics and pushed to allow Ukraine into NATO are issues that will not be resolved easily. Russia has now upped the anti by supporting opposition groups in the EU and attempted to disrupt the U.S. election. If Russia would attempt to have bases in Mexico or Canada or Cuba it would be a international crisis. The attempt to encircle and move NATO membership closer and closer to the borders of  Russia have most likely come to their limit, unless the West is ready to go to war. It seems the goal may be to encourage regime change in Russia. This is not likely to happen as Putin has a high approval rating in his country and the Russian people understand the situation.

Both Russia and the Ukraine have much to lose in this crisis. There is much interdependence and history between the two countries. It is possible with a new look and a willingness of all parties to co-operate to come to a satisfactory agreement. It is possible that the anti will now be raised much higher, to get the attention of the West and the Ukraine to be more willing for a re-evaluation of their  policy of Russian containment. The West, rather than attempting to punish Putin and Russia, should assist in negotiating a reasonable solution.

While, of course this is a brief summary of the history of U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. There is much I could not cover in this brief summary. There are more details found in Wikipedia, U.S. state department and many article by the Kissinger group and others. While some may disagree as to who is at fault for this situation, it cannot be denied that there is a serious crisis at hand. This summary may be useful in understanding this relationship as it will most likely be in the news in the coming months.

originally published 2/8/17 part 7 of 7

2/14/2021

The U.S. state department is insisting that an invasion by Russia is imminent, that may be true, It has been made clear in the last few weeks that Russia has sent written proposals to the west to address their concerns and complaints, that did not start in the last few weeks, but is rooted in the U.S. policy of containment, coupled with a U.S. policy of regime change anywhere it should choose. 

A compromise and suitable agreement is possible, that would insure the independence and security of Ukraine and Russia. It is likely that Germany, France and Ukraine would be seriously interested in such an agreement. It seems the U.S. is unwilling to listen or acknowledge any concerns of Russia. It seems they are determined to continue on the same path of the past, a foreign policy that has destroyed the middle east, destabilized the politics and culture of Europe, and now may very well usher in a new era of instability and chaos in Europe. 

This foreign policy has weakened the U.S. both economically and militarily and has damaged the respect formally enjoyed by the United States.

If any agreement is reached it will be from the negotiations of the countries who have the most to lose by a continued confrontation with Russia, such a compromise will be a devastating blow to the ability of the U.S. to control the direction of world events.

Update. 1/13/23  . We now see the results of this misguided policy of the United States, Ukraine is a wholly dependent country of the United States. It may never recover from the devastation that has resulted. It could have been an independent neutral country and possibly the most prosperous country in Europe.

Europe is in the process of de-industrialization and the likely result is social upheaval. 

Poland is mobilizing, possibly with the insistence of the United States, it has made it known it has desires to reoccupy part of Ukraine that it believes was taken from it in the past. It is also demanding $1.2 Trillion in  reparations from Germany for its part in WW2. It is asking the United States to intervene in its demands.

It is now a standoff of the worst kind, Russia will never cede the parts it has annexed. It is in the process, along with half the worlds population, in forming a separate economic world system, forced on them by sanctions that separated them from the western world and damaged the economies of Europe.

If NATO does not prevail in this conflict, it is an alliance that will likely dissolve in short order. While NATO expansion to contain Russia was a misguided policy, NATO was an important alliance for European U.S. cooperation. The reputation of the United States is likely to be severely damaged. Western Europe was guided in this policy by the U.S. They are suffering greatly from this conflict and it is well understood that the United States is responsible for the sabotage of the Gas pipelines from Russia. A development that will have long term consequences for the economic prosperity of Europe.

This could have been avoided, with a objective consideration of Russia's concerns. The United States has been on a raging policy of regime change and intervention of other countries for 3 decades. The consequences are now going to effect the whole world, including the United States.

Update 3/24/ 2024, Relations between Russia and the U.S. and Europe are at the lowest in post soviet history. It is very possible that a cessation of diplomatic relations may be on the near horizon, especially if the west decides to confiscate Russian assets. 

On Mar. 21, Russia has declared that they are at war, a step up from a special military operation. It may be followed by an escalation by Russia in taking out the electric generation and highway and rail infrastructure of Ukraine, especially since the threat of EU troops entering the conflict seems imminent. It has always been possible for Russia to take out every major bridge in the country and also to target the government buildings in Kiev, that may now soon happen.

Relations with the United States and the EU may now be irretrievably broken and the new goal for over half of the global population is a separate and independent economic system no longer dominated by the west. This will be either a reality or it will be WW3 and all the possible consequences.

Brief history of U.S. Russian relations, Part 5 and 6

 

U.S., RUSSIAN RELATIONS, POST WW2, PART 5

COMMUNIST EXPERIMENT ENDS

MAJOR POLICY ERROR BY THE WEST

Boris Yeltsin was elected president of the Russian Soviet Federation Socialist Republic on June 12, 1991. With the resignation of Gorbachev he became the first elected president of the Russian Federation on Dec. 25th, 1991. One must take note that Yeltsin was the first elected president in the history of Russia. Democracy, free markets, and self government  had not existed at any time in their history. This was a population of much ethnic, cultural, political, and religious diversity. Yeltsin set out to embrace free market capitalism in a country with no experience and very little exposure to these ideas. It is a marvel that such a transition began in such a peaceful manner. There were still communists and many who would have preferred the old system. There was still great distrust of the west and capitalism. Ronald Reagan and the U.S. had the highest approval of the Russian people in history. Some in this country believed it was a plan to lull the U.S and its allies into complacency. Reagan's motto was, " Trust but verify", this attitude was acceptable to the Russians.

Yeltsin began by privatizing all government industry, this was accomplished by giving citizens vouchers for 10,000 rubles that could be transferred into shares of stock. While this was an admirable idea, many of the Russian people did not value these options and sold them to the more sophisticated members of their society. These were primarily former government officials and communist party members. This created the era of the oligarchs, who became very rich and powerful in a very short time. Yeltsin also urged cooperation with many economists from the U.S. and other western countries to advise them on how to move to a capitalist system.  I personally remember this time as a time of great hope of  peace and the welcoming of Russia into the community of nations. This was desired by many in Russia and the rest of the world. It was not to be a smooth transition, as one could imagine, but it was a movement that was now irreversible, at least as far as returning to communism. Boris Yeltsin was re-elected in 1996. These were times were we enjoyed the best relations with Russian and the west since 1917.

As the Soviet Union was being replaced by independence of the former Warsaw Pact countries and Russia, many negotiations were being engaged in to create a stable transition. The Russian Federation and NATO agreed that the unified Germany could be a member of NATO, but that all of the former Warsaw Pact countries would be independent entities. These agreements have been verified by former west German diplomats and former negotiators for the United States. Russia still had a memory of the fact that their survival was secured in the wars with Napoleon, WW1 and WW2 by the large distances from their possible enemies. Their large terrain was similar to our security of the Atlantic and Pacific ocean. This agreement was broken on July 8, 1997 when NATO agreed to the inclusion of Hungary, the Check Republic and Poland into NATO. This was accomplished in 1999. In 2004 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania were also included.  According to George F. Kennan, an American diplomat and an advocate of the containment policy, this decision "may be expected to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. This decision was criticized by many military, political and academic leaders as a " policy error of historic proportions." It seemed to be more than a policy error, but an intentional attempt to abort the democratization of Russia. This could be compared to Stalin's refusal to abide by his commitments at the end of WW2.

This attempt to encircle the Russian Federation  at a time of its vulnerability brought out the worst fears of the Russians. It would be no different than Mexico and Canada joining the former Warsaw Pact. This was the beginning of the new distrust between Russia and the United States and its allies.


originally published 1/26/17 part 5 of 7

 U.S., RUSSIAN RELATIONS POST WW2 PART 6

NEW COLD WAR BEGINS

Boris Yeltsin stated that his goal was to transform social economics into a capitalist market economy and nationwide privatization. The 1990's were a period of economic depression and much anxiety about the future. Yeltsin survived a coup attempt and cracked down on political opponents. It was no easy task to move a country from communism to capitalism. There was also a war in Chechnya that was suppressed by the Russian Federation. One must note that the Soviet Union was the first to take notice of the danger of Islamic fundamentalism. While dealing with much adversity, Yeltsin was still re-elected in 1996, but he was in ill health with severe heart problems. On Dec. 31, 1999, Yeltsin resigned and the then prime minister, Vladimir Putin, succeeded him. Putin had moved up quickly from the deputy mayor of St. Petersburg to the prime minister in less than 8 years. Yeltsin had appointed him prime minister in August of 1999, and he was approved by a strong margin in the Duma. He ran for president in the 2000 election and won with 53% of the vote. The Russian economy grew for 8 straight years, helped by high commodity prices. In his first four year term the Gross domestic product increased by 72%. He had some success in diminishing the power of the oligarchs. He was re-elected in 2004 with 73% of the vote. In his second term he increasingly took more power unto himself. He was also president of the "Unity Party" which was becoming the dominate party in the country. He was seen as taking more and more power and began to see an increase in demonstrations and opposition. At the same time he also had made meaningful reforms that bettered the life of Russians. The Unity Party won 64% of the vote in the Duma elections and Putin enjoyed a high popularity with the citizens.

Russia and the United States had favorable relations in many ways, considerable success in limiting nuclear weapons, a joint space venture that continues today, joint support against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and many more agreements too numerous for this blog. The inclusion of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary by NATO in 1999 was not protested too much because of the instability of the country and all the problems associated with shifting to a free market economy. But when the next NATO expansion was proposed, and then consummated, the attitude changed to a wariness of the motives of the U.S. and the West. The plan proposed by Bush 2  to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic was countered by the Russian Federation. The Federation implied their missiles would be aimed at those installations and it was even suggested that they might take them out. Relations definitely became more tense. There were many meetings with Bush 1, then Clinton, Bush 2, and finally Obama. While much progress was made, the expansion of NATO  to former Warsaw Pact countries and then the placing of missiles on their border set the stage for much more distrust. Additionally, Putin accused Secretary of State Hilary Clinton of being involved with internal opposition in the 2011 election. Joe Biden made derogatory comments about the Russian economy and military power, stating that the U.S. had the stronger hand. Neo-cons continuously bragged of defeating the Soviet Union.

In 2008, due to constitutional limits on consecutive terms. Putin was barred from running for president. Dmitry Medvedev was elected president and he appointed Putin as his prime minister. This sparked protests and outrage across the country. Prime minister Putin worked on correcting the demographic declines in the country and encouraging an increase in the birth rate with subsidies. The church was re instituted and the Russian Orthodox church was repaid for property seized after the revolution. In 2012 he was able to again run for the presidency and won with 63% of the vote. While all polling places were monitored, the opposition claimed fraud and international groups claimed irregularities. Tensions with the West increased. In 2012 the Russian Duma, with Putin's support, outlawed homosexual propaganda to minors. They stated that no action was to be taken against homosexuals, but the law was to protect the children. This was followed by outrage in the West.

Up to this time one would have to say Russian actions were mostly resistance to any further encroachment by NATO and a desire to set their own path. The verbal onslaught from the U.S. and the West increased with accusations against Putin and a blatant attempt to embarrass Russia. This was evident during the 2014 Winter Olympics, when Bob Costas, the announcer for NBC sports, degraded everything he could about the Russian facilities and expressed his political bias against everything Russian. While Vladimir Putin may not be the West's image of a democratic leader and this may be true, this situation was not a one sided affair. It seems Russia and Putin pose a dilemma for the U.S. neo-cons who would like to isolate Russia from all foreign affairs and would prefer a cold war and the left who view Putin's rejection of socialism and his resistance to allow homosexual activists a free reign in Russia as treasonous to their cause.

This situation was about to enter a new era of not just Russian resistance, but actual provocation by Putin toward the West.

originally published 1/29/17  part 6 of 7

Brief history of U.S. Russian relations, Part 3 and 4

 

 U.S. RUSSIAN RELATIONS SINCE WW2 PART 3

COLD WAR CONTINUES

Stalin seemed reclusive and possibly paranoid, this may have been a well grounded concern, he refused to fly, he seldom left territory under his control, and was ruthless with his adversaries.

Khrushchev was much more outgoing and a bit of a showman, much more willing to travel around the world and made several trips to the U.S.. Khrushchev, who was one of Stalin's top underlings, took part in many of the excesses of the Stalin era. He took part in the purges and did as he was ordered by Stalin. After Stalin's death, he did close the Gulag camps, freed many political prisoners and instituted many reforms that benefited the people. He was willing to use extravagant language and props to bring attention to his cause. He was noted for a tirade at the U.N in 1960 were he pounded his hand on the podium and finally used his shoe to continue making his point. While he still advocated the expansion of communism, he also attempted to warm relations with the West.

With the loosening of the iron grip of Stalin, there were self determination movements in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 1950's, and 1960's some that were put down by force. NATO added Greece and Turkey in 1952. West Germany was added in 1955 and the Soviets then formally instituted the "Warsaw Pact" in the same year. This tit for tat chess game continued and culminated in the Cuban Missile Crises in 1962.  The U.S. stated in no uncertain terms that there could be no Soviet missiles in Cuba. Castro advised the Soviets to launch a preemptive nuclear attack on the U.S.. Finally Khrushchev relented and withdrew the weapons with an agreement that the U.S. would withdraw their missiles from Turkey. This was an agreement kept secret until the 1970's. In 1964 Khrushchev was removed and retired from politics, he died of natural causes in 1971. He was a step in the right direction for normalization of relations with the West, but change sometimes moves slowly.

Khrushchev was replaced by Leonid Brezhnev, who ended  many of the cultural reforms of his  predecessor. He reintroduced some of the oppressive policies of Stalin and stepped up the arms race with the West. He also supported the North Vietnamese in their war with the south. Khrushchev was opposed to the continuation of this war. Brezhnev instituted the "Brezhnev Doctrine", which stated that the Soviet policy was to support socialist governments and movements worldwide. While more of a hardliner than Khrushchev he was by no means another Stalin. While supporting communist movements in central America and Afghanistan, he moved to negotiate several arms control agreements with the west. The domestic economy moved into a period of stagnation during his term. He died on Nov. 10, 1982 and was replaced by Yuri Andropov.

Andropov was an ex KGB director, he intensified the internal struggle against dissidents and was again increasing the arms race with the west. He died on Feb. 9, 1984. He was replaced by Konstantin Chernenko who died March 10, 1985

It should be noted that the last few leaders were old and in ill health when they came into office. These men were all early leaders of the Communist party and found it difficult to lead reforms. It seemed that most who came after Stalin hoped to lessen tensions with the west, but after a lifetime of devout communism it was difficult task. Most drank heavily and often were heavy smokers. This may have been a result of a life of uncertainty and danger that may have been hard to overcome. There may be a  similar situation with many in the western defense and intelligence communities who grew up in a era of the cold war and cannot put it behind them.

Chernenko was replaced by Mikhail Gorbachev on March 11, 1985, he was 54 years old, the first leader born after the revolution in 1917. He had given speeches in the Kremlin advocating reform and now had a chance to try to bring about those reforms.


This was originally publishes 1 /16/17 part 3 of 7

U.S. RUSSIAN RELATIONS POST WW2

REAGAN GORBACHEV YEARS

Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981, he immediately began a refurbishing of the U.S. Military. Part of his plan was a missile defense system that was a cause for concern in the USSR. The Soviets had put their resources after WW2, first into a large number of armored vehicles on the borders of western Europe, then shifted to mobile nuclear missiles and a large investment in intercontinental ballistic missiles. The introduction of a missile defense system could make much of their investment obsolete.

Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in March 1985, he was the first Soviet leader born after the revolution, he was 54 years old and had been in favor of reform for some time. He was appointed by the Politburo, so we can assume there were others who favored reform, and of course there were others who were suspicious of any changes. He introduced the policy of Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring). According to Gorbachev, perestroika was the "conference of development of democracy, socialist self-government, encouragement of initiative and creative endeavor, improved order and discipline, more glasnost, criticism and self-criticism in all spheres of our society. It is utmost respect for the individual and consideration for personal dignity".

The stagnation of the Russian economy brought about by top down control, regulation and little incentive for creativity and hard work was a serious problem. The rate of alcoholism was severe and the famous Russian quote summed it up," we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." The black market thrived for goods that were not produced by the government industry. While still a believer in socialism, Gorbachev set in motion a series of events that led to a desire for independence by most of the eastern European republics. This was started in Poland with the "Solidarity" movement in 1980, it was a series of non-violent strikes and other protests that eventually led to semi-free elections in 1989. While Gorbachev introduced the possibility of free elections and self government, he believed that they would continue as communist countries. While these reforms were moving forward Gorbachev made overtures to all the major western leaders and suspended the introduction of the soviets newest intermediate missiles. In November of  1985 he met Ronald Reagan in Geneva, and while no agreements were made they came away in a very friendly atmosphere.

In January 1986 Gorbachev proposed the elimination of all intermediate range missiles in Europe and also the possibility of the elimination of all nuclear weapons by 2000. He also began the process of  withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. On October 11 1986, Reagan and Gorbachev agreed in principle to eliminate INF missiles in Europe and limit them to 100  worldwide. They also agreed to eliminate Nuclear weapons by 1996. These overtures were all made by Gorbachev and found a willing partner in Reagan. In November 24,  1987 they signed the INF treaty in Geneva. In 1988 Gorbachev completed the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. In 1989 he abandoned the "Brezhnev Doctrine" and allowed elections in the former Warsaw pact countries. By 1991 all of the former soviet bloc countries had become independent. While there was an attempted coup in 1991 and much uncertainty in the future, this was an amazing accomplishment. On December 25,1991 Gorbachev resigned and the next day the flag of the Soviet Union was replace with the flag of the Russian Federation. On Dec. 27, 1991 Boris Yeltsin replaced Mikhail Gorbachev.

While Gorbachev had hoped to keep the union of the states intact, things spiraled out of control once freedom became an option. Those days in the Soviet Union will go down as a pivotal time in the 20th century, alongside WW1,WW2, and the great depression. To unwind the Soviet Union without a large scale civil war was an amazing accomplishment.

originally published 1/22/17 part 4 of 7

More western troops expected into Ukraine.

 FRENCH COULD SEND 20,000 TO UKRAINE

THEY SHOULD EXPECT TO BE PRIMARY TARGET

French military chief of staff, Pierre Schill is claiming they will send 20,000 troops to Ukraine in the next 30 days. There are some reports that some of these troops are already arriving. The general also claimed that they would be ready to command a combined EU force of 60,000. It may be that France believe with this action they will encourage others to also send troops. It can be expected that verification of such a move will be reported very soon after it occurs.

It seems the French believe that their troops can be used to relieve some support duties of Ukrainian troops allowing the Ukrainians to be sent to the conflict zone. I would expect as soon as they arrive in Ukraine they will be a legitimate and primary target. 

There have been foreign troops in Ukraine since the beginning of this conflict, many have returned home and many have been killed in Ukraine. 

Russia estimates that 13,400 foreign troops have fought in Ukraine. They estimate that 5962 have been killed.

Poland 2690 of which 1497 have been killed.

Georgia                         561 killed

U.S.                               491 killed

Canada                          422 killed

U.K.                              360 killed

Romania                        349

France                           147

Germany                         88

There have been foreign troops also fighting on the Russian side. Troops from Africa, Nepal, India, Cuba and other Asian countries are reported.

If these EU troops enter Ukraine it will be a serious escalation to this conflict, with any hotels and other places of housing targeted. 

It seems the west still believes that it can convince Russia to give up on their objectives in Ukraine by intimidation, but they are delusional, Russia will go all out to ensure that Ukraine is not a NATO country and will stay the course even if it ends in mutual destruction.

Media spins political narrative, rather than U.S. automaker warning.

 U.S. AUTOMAKERS MAY SOON BE IRRELEVANT

FEDERAL CENTRAL PLANNERS HAVE DESTROYED U.S. INDUSTRY

This weekend Donald Trump warned that China is in the process of shopping for a site to build one of the biggest auto plants in the world in Mexico. BYD, China's biggest EV automaker is receiving bids from several Mexican states for a new plant that will produce 150,000 units a year. His warning about a bloodbath in the auto industry, if he is not elected, was again used as a political narrative to accuse Trump of predicting violence. The warning about the possible end of the U.S. auto business was ignored, after all, in this country political expediency will always be foremost rather than any warning about possible negative economic outcomes.

China is now the biggest manufacturer and also biggest exporter of automobiles. They dominate the Electric vehicle market and the batteries that power them.They will neutralize any attempt of U.S. automakers to sell cars in international trade, that is reality now, U.S. automakers will soon only have a U.S. and Canadian market.

If such a plant does go on line in Mexico, it will fall under the NAFTA free trade agreement and make EV's available possibly for under $20,000, it would be the end of the U.S. auto business especially for EV's. 

Even if cars built in Mexico can be restricted entry into the U.S. they will be available to all of Central and South America. They will soon decimate U.S. German and Japanese car makers. 

Because of sanctions, German car makers have lost all their business in Russia which has been replaced with Chinese and Russian vehicles, many being built on former EU owned assembly lines. 

China now has 5x the manufacturing capacity of the U.S. and with its ability to find material and energy around the world it is going to be the dominate manufacturing country in the world, not only in basic industries but also in the technology area. 

At the same time the EU and the U.S. central planners have imposed regulations that are not compatible with manufacturing, especially for foundries and steel makers that make smoke, heat and dangerous work environments. 

With a $34 Trillion debt and growing this debt by $1Trillion every quarter the U.S. miracle is living on borrowed time. Borrowed from the work and ingenuity of the past that has been usurped with educated know nothings with only political skills and little real experience.

The debate is more about instilling fear from Trump, Russia, China or Conservative minded Americans and promising new spending programs for students, women and any group whose vote is for sale.

The U.S. has lost its competitive position in the world, its manufacturing base and soon its ability to buy votes at home and friends around the world. You can spin a narrative for some time, but reality is going to be a truly real experience.

7th Russian election concluded, results not unexpected.

 HAS RUSSOPHOBIA CEMENTED PUTIN'S POSITION

RUSSIAN'S UNITED AGAINST WESTERN THREATS

The 7th elections in Russia's history have been concluded. With a history of Czarist rule followed by totalitarian communist rule, the first ever election was held in 1991. This year's elections matched the turnout of their first election with a 74% turnout of the 112 million eligible voters.

This years election was extended to 3 days Mar. 15 to 17. polls open 12 hours a day. With 8 time zones and sometimes extreme weather it was hoped to boost election turnout. Elections have usually had a 64 to 67% turnout.

While the west hoped that a war with Ukraine would weaken Putin's position in Russia it may have actually cemented the resolve of the Russian people behind Putin. Putin became very popular in Russia by turning around the economic disaster that resulted from the change in ideology and government system in 1991 and was able to move the country into a positive economic course. 

This years election had 3 opposition candidates, the communist party candidate, Nicholas Kharitonov ran on a platform of progressive taxes rather than the present flat rate tax of 17% on all, lowering the retirement age and eliminating taxes for low income citizens. He received 4.6% of the vote. The communist party sometimes receives as much as 25% of the vote in local elections.

The Liberal Democratic party (LDPR), Leonid Slutsky, advocates closer ties to Asia, and tighter restriction on foreign agents and accelerating the campaign in Ukraine. He received 3 % of the vote.

The New People's Party candidate was Vladislav Davankov, advocates Peace and negotiations, received 4.2% of the vote.

With 94% of the votes counted, Putin received 87% of the vote.

While the west portrays the elections in Russia as illegitimate, they use paper ballots, filled out in secure booths very similar to those in the U.S. It is unlikely that any serious change in the direction of the Russian government is imminent even when Putin is no longer a candidate. 

The continuous accusations and hysteria against anything Russian has solidified to the Russians that the west is an existential enemy. This is more a result of the narrative and actions of the west than the policies of Putin.

EU wary of confiscating Russian assets, retaliation for sure.

 SANCTIONS AND ECONOMIC WARFARE HAS UNEXPECTED COSTS

POLITICIANS WON'T PAY COSTS

The U.S. and UK are urging the EU to confiscate Russian assets and transfer the money to Ukraine. While some of the money may go to Ukraine much of it will pay for weapons and supplies. Over $300 billion in Russian assets have been frozen, most of it in EU banks. Confiscation would most likely lead to retaliation by Russia against EU companies with assets in Russia. Just yesterday Russia decided to not confiscate French yogurt maker Danone's assets. The company is still operating in Russia. Those companies that have decided to leave Russia are negotiating to recover some value for those assets.

Russia has indicated that they may actually sever diplomatic relations with any EU country that confiscated assets and hinted at severe retaliation. The long list of sanctions against Russia have proven to damage EU business and economies more than Russia. 

The other concern is a rapid flight of foreign assets out of EU banks by other non European countries that could possibly create a banking crisis in the EU.

Recently Russia has suspended a fishing treaty with the UK that has been in effect since 1956 that allowed the UK to fish in Russian waters in Barents sea. Some have estimated that 40% of UK fish came from these waters, but the UK dismissed the action as immaterial. Will the UK now see a rise in fish prices?

The recent action in the U.S. to demand that TIK TOK be sold to U.S. parties is really another form of sanctions and economic warfare. Has anyone considered if China may retaliate and demand that Boeing, General Motors or other U.S. companies be forced to divest from their assets in China. One must wonder how short sighted many of these decisions have become.

These types of sanctions and economic warfare have historically preceded major world warfare. At one time most of these issues could have been negotiated by serious diplomacy, something that is now nonexistent. As this escalation continues chances of diplomatic solutions may soon be impossible.

Banning TIKTOK, goodbye youth vote?

 HOUSE VOTES TO BAN OR FORCE SALE OF TIK TOK

WE WILL SEE HOW WELL THIS SELLS

Yesterday The House of Representatives voted to ban Tik Tok or force its sale to U.S. media companies. It looks like just another abuse of power to feather the nests of the domestic media companies and also give the state more ability to define the election messaging and and reap data for its database. It most likely will pass the Senate and be quickly signed by Biden. Tik Tok may have a case for the court in an obvious first amendment case.  While it may appear to be a victory for the state, we will see how a prolonged court battle and how the younger generation view this action.

This decision may very well set off a response that that many elected official have not anticipated. The younger generation of Americans can now be witness to the overreach of the government into something that most elected officials have no idea how much Tik Tok is used by American youth, many who are voting age. Tik Tok should take up the fight, and refuse to be bullied  into submission. Let them ban it, and then we can watch the show.

I expect that some politicians, if they are aware, are seeing the blood in the water. A lot of republicans took this vote, hoping to capitalize on the, "hate everything China fever" They may soon find out that not everyone hates everything China and definitely not Tik Tok. 

The first shot was fired by Donald Trump, very astute at defining political opportunity, when he noted that Facebook and others will stand to gain and that many politicians will now have their hand out for recompense. It is indeed an opportunity for any who is willing to alert the youth vote to the abuses of the state that until now they have never contemplated.

I actually have never used Tik Tok, but my children and grandchildren love Tik Tok and I doubt that any of them can see it as a threat to national security. The action by the politicians may very well be viewed as a real threat to their pursuit of happiness.

Brief history of U.S. Russian relations, Part 1 and 2.

 

U.S. RUSSIAN RELATIONS SINCE WW2 PART 1

DISTRUST IS ROOTED IN THE PAST

The relationship between Russia and the United States is an extension of the deals made after WW2 between the United States, Great Britain and The Soviet Union. These decisions were made at a series of conferences held and decisions made by Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill.

The first was the Cairo Conference, Nov. 22 to 26 1943, followed closely by the Tehran conference held at the Soviet embassy in Iran. These early conferences dealt with the plan to win the war in Europe. From the record it is evident that Stalin was the dominate figure in these talks. While it was agreed to coordinate their attacks on Germany, Stalin was already making good on taking advantage of a crisis. Stalin already in 1943 won agreement on the support for the communist partisans in Yugoslavia and the USSR moving the border of eastern Poland in their favor. While Churchill would have liked to resist these decisions, he was in the weakest position, Stalin already had troops in much of eastern Europe, the U.S. was the main producer of war equipment on which all were dependent, Britain was hanging on for their survival.

The conferences held in Yalta in Crimea Feb 4 to 11,1945 had mostly to do with the partition of Germany and the transition of Europe from war to peace. It also guaranteed the self determination of the countries of eastern Europe, this included Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria and other countries already occupied by the Soviet Union and the allies. Both Churchill and Roosevelt were strongly criticized for these arrangements, many knowing that Stalin would not hold up his side of the bargain.  Roosevelt had brushed off warnings of a potential domination by a Stalin dictatorship in part of Europe. He explained that "I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man," and reasoned, "I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, 'noblesse oblige,' he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace" One must take note in the book the "Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn , he made mention that when Eleanor Roosevelt visited the Soviet Union in 1957, she mentioned the improvements in education, medical care and sanitation, but neglected to discuss that some of worst atrocities in human history had been perpetrated. Whether she knew about this or not is not clear, but the Roosevelt's had an affinity for Socialism and at the time the Soviet Union was the idol of many advocates of this form of government.

The final conference was held in Potsdam, occupied Germany, July 17 to Aug. 2 1945. This was attended by Stalin, Truman, and Atlee for Great Britain. This finalized the partition of Germany and Austria, a share given to France that was to be taken out of the U.S. and British partitions. This also decided the division of Vietnam at the 16th parallel and granted some Japanese Islands to the Soviet Union even though they didn't participate in war with Japan. Truman tried to take a tougher stance, but the Soviet Union occupied these countries with a very large experienced army. It was not long until Stalin installed Communist governments in all these countries. There were some, including George Patton, who advocated the invasion of the Soviet Union and the freeing of these countries, while it was not a viable plan while Roosevelt was president, Truman, after acquiring the Atomic bomb,  could have used it as leverage to negotiate freedom and free elections in eastern Europe. Most everyone had their fill of war and it was not possible to win support for such a plan. The cold war had begun. Anti-Communist fear and resistance, with good cause, became the policy of the U.S and the democratic countries of the west.


This was originally published 1/9/17. It is the first of 7 parts.

U.S. RUSSIAN RELATIONS SINCE WW2 PART 2

COLD WAR YEARS

Immediately following WW2 the chess game of pushing the advantage between the expansion of Communism and self government began.  The Soviet Union under Stalin was relentless in probing for opportunities to advance the ideology of global communism. In 1946 a civil war in Greece between Communist and royalist factions began. This was followed by the Chinese communist revolution in the same year, this civil war lasted until 1949 when 600,000 Chinese Nationalist troops and 2 million civilians fled to Taiwan. An estimated 10,000,000 died in this conflict and the dispute with Taiwan is still ongoing.

 After the defeat of Japan, Korea above the 38th parallel and Vietnam above the 16th parallel were to be administered by China. When the Civil war in China came to an end, they almost immediately invaded South Korea on June 25th 1950, this war lasted until July 27, 1953. 21 UN countries participated, 88% of the troops were from the U.S. U.S. air power was the determining factor. The North Koreans were supported by China and the USSR. Many of the N. Korean aircraft were piloted by Russian airmen. Gen. Douglas MacArthur proposed using Nuclear weapons to take on the Chinese, that idea was rejected by Truman. This dispute is still ongoing.

 At the same time pressure was brought against South Vietnam which was still a French colony, this continued until 1954 when the French pulled out. It was not long before the U.S. began giving aid to the South Vietnam and escalated into the Vietnam war in which 50,000 U.S. troops were killed, the U.S. eventually pulled out and Vietnam fell to the communists.

In Europe it was much of the same, in 1948 the USSR blockaded West Berlin and the allies commenced with the Berlin airlift to supply allied areas of Berlin. East Germany put up a fence to keep the population from fleeing to the west and eventually built the Berlin Wall, many were shot while trying to flee  communist rule. Stalin proclaimed that war with the U.S. was inevitable. The USSR tested its first atomic bomb on Aug. 29, 1949. The U.S. developed a plan for the defense of Western Europe from a Soviet invasion. It was called "Operation Dropshot", and called for the saturation of the Soviet Union with Atomic bombs and a large ground invasion.

The USSR now controlled the countries of Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Albania, and East Germany. Yugoslavia was an independent communist state under Tito. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were ceded to the USSR by the allies in 1940. This became know as the "Warsaw Pact". It must be noted that the USSR suffered 40,000,000 deaths in WW2, far more than any of the other combatants. WW2  put most of their major cities in ruins, it could be understood that they were obsessed with a buffer zone for their security.

It was a tense time with civil defense drills in the U.S. and western Europe with instructions in schools to protect ones self in the event of Nuclear War. Many believed that a third world war was now imminent. To counter the threat from the soviet block, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Netherlands and the United Kingdom agreed to cooperate in their mutual defense with the treaty of Brussels in 1948. This was followed with the formation of the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" on April 4, 1949. It consisted of the 5 nations of the treaty of Brussels plus, the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, a total of 12 nations.  The forming of NATO and the support of the United states is probably what avoided the conflict. That and the death of Stalin in 1953.

Stalin was replaced by Nikita Khrushchev, who made many attempts at reform, he was a bit of a colorful character who is famous for his many typical Russian quotations, he was still a die hard communist who pursued the idea of global Communism, but lifted the dismal dark burden from the Russian people. His quote about Stalin is telling.

"Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation and patient cooperation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his [own] viewpoint, and the correctness of his [own] position, was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation." — Nikita Khrushchev

Originally published 1/12/17, Part 2 of 7