Avoiding war should be at the top of America's agenda

The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Late last week, The New York Post, MSN and other major media outlets delivered more bad news for beleaguered Americans. “Experts are now predicting that an all-out war with Russia could develop within the next 20 years, a senior NATO official has warned as the bloc prepares for its biggest military exercises in decades.

“We have to realize that it is not a fact that we are at peace,” Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, chairman of NATO's military committee, told reporters after a meeting of the defense chiefs alliance in Brussels.

It's a great strategy to argue for “crossing the line” in Ukraine! For the military-industrial complex, that means more money. Still, there may be alternatives.

A decade ago, Angela Stent introduced an enlightening read: “The Limits of Associations.” He discussed in detail the ups and downs of contemporary US-Russia relations. Probably the most surprising thing Dr. Stent revealed was Vladimir Putin's desire to join NATO.

As reported, Putin spoke for the first time with outgoing President Bill Clinton about the possibility of Russia joining the MAP program. MAP is the systematic sequence used by former Warsaw Pact nations to form part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Clinton's response was, “I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I'll endorse it.”

Putin repeated the request to incoming President George W. Bush. Bush's response was, “I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I'll endorse it.”

However, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell received the proposal, he drafted it.

Ramaswamy's points make increasing sense

Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy shook the very foundations of the American political class when he proclaimed, “the constitution calls for three branches of government. Not four.”

Powell's action lent credence to Putin's claim that “after dealing with several American presidencies, I realized that it is those men in black suits behind the scenes who really run America.”

The Russian president later referred to them as “the deep state.”

As with Donald Trump and others who challenged the narrative, Ramaswamy was ridiculed and castigated by Democrats, neocons and the corporate media. Especially when he proposed term limits for federal bureaucrats.

In a blistering article, MSN warned Americans of Trump's plan to reinstate “Schedule F” that would lay off thousands of civil service workers. His lawyers initially said this was legally impossible, but Ramaswamy made it clear that Trump had received inaccurate legal advice. He claimed the “mass layoffs” were legal, but would face legal challenges, eventually landing at SCOTUS.

Rooted in the American psyche

Since the “silent generation”, it has been fashionable to see Russia as “the enemy”. Maybe it's because Russia is synonymous with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union translated Marxism and Communism, the root of all evil and misery. It is a fact that Marxism was responsible for 100 million deaths worldwide in the previous century.

In 1991, things officially changed in Russia. Suddenly there was no Soviet Union. The Russian people found their experiment with democracy fraught with danger. Their previous “cradle to grave” existence had severely limited them. While applauding their determination, people tend to forget that the Russians had no experience with democracy.

Historically, Russians have gravitated toward a strong, authoritarian leader, be it Putin, Joseph Stalin, Catherine the Great, Peter the Great, or Ivan the Terrible. In the opinion of many Russians, democracies do not work. They always end up forming oligarchies or plutocracies.

Capitalism is something else. Russian historians recognized the stagnation of the demand economy of the Soviet Union. “Perestroika” equals “reorganization”. Although there have been unexpected twists and turns, reforms are underway. Starting with the privatization of agricultural land. The vast Russian forests that make up 22% of the planet's forests are next on the list. It is believed that there may be more wealth in these Russian forests than in their oil and natural gas.

A new NATO?

Before 1917, the United States and Russia had a consistent and even pleasant relationship. Recovering this historical base would be an important positive for the whole world. The question is: “how?”

The United States Senate has become reminiscent of a “geriatric center.” Many senators who hold key committee chairs are in their seventies and eighties. At best, they see Russia as the Soviet Union during the era of Mikael Gorbachev. At worst, they see it as it was when Leonid Brezhnev was running things. Even conceiving a new alliance led by the United States and Russia is probably beyond them.

A new alliance called “the Coalition for World Peace” would have support. Russia and the United States are natural allies. Both would gain immensely from this relationship. Finding a starting point is key.

It starts with confidence. James Baker had previously promised Russia that there would be no eastward expansion of NATO. That didn't happen! The good news is that both nations are faith-based and practice tolerance towards different religions. Christians are the majority in both countries.

Russia is not a western civilization. They didn't grow up with Aesop's fables and canterberry tales. Their people are usually not as mobile as Americans. Many will live in the same homes and communities their entire lives. They place more emphasis on their extended families than Americans do.

“Keeping all Russians together” has always been the goal. They like a Russia as seen when Peter the Great was “Tsar of the Three Russias”. Russia then included “Great Russia, Little Russia, and White Russia.”

Donald Trump seems to have recognized this paradigm. Trying to sell it to a Senate full of “seventies cold warriors” will be difficult. Replacing members of the Clinton, Bush and Obama State Departments would be as easy as enacting term limits, another difficult endeavor.

However uncomfortable and unrealistic these actions may be, they are preferable to all-out war. Especially if we consider that the opponent has nuclear capabilities comparable to ours.

Latest messages from Jeff Willis (see everything)

We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.