Yalta II

Observers of the United States of America have good reason to wonder what is going on in Washington. Congress holds hearings on President Trump’s supposed coordination with Russia for purposes of manipulating the election last year. Republicans involved in the hearings question FBI Director James Comey about his non-investigation of those in the federal bureaucracy who illegally surveilled Donald Trump (as early as the end of March, 2016) and then shared that information with the press. The White House asks why Democrats are never concerned over Clinton Foundation acceptance, going on for years, of money from Russian government sources. The former head honcho of the Neocons, Dick Cheney, declares that actual war has broken out between the USA and the Russian Federation. Finally, all branches of government are responding variously to revelations by whistle-blowers via Wikileaks that, in all likelihood, it was the CIA that hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s emails in order to frame Donald Trump.

The only constant in all of the above is an establishment non-acceptance of Donald Trump’s election as President, and a persistent claim that the Russian Federation was somehow involved in this impossible event.

There are those who, having inside knowledge, know the above strange claim to contain a core truth. Donald Trump did not “win” the 2016 presidential election on November 8^th. He was placed in office by people having more power than “the establishment” that has managed Washington for the last several decades (the Neocons, currently referred to as “the Deep State”). Moreover, it was ultimately the Russian Federation that caused this to occur, just not in any way described by Democrats or other opponents of the current occupant of the White House.

Essentially, a surrender of the United States of America to the Russian Federation has occurred. This event formally took place on or around March 25^th, 2016, during the visit of then Secretary of State John Kerry to Moscow (the visit with the mysterious briefcase handcuffed to his wrist).

Since Americans must never know of this government surrender, because it might cause them to insist on war (so deluded are they about their country’s invulnerability to nuclear attack), the only evidence of the capitulation lies in a commentary or two from Russian sources and various symbolic gestures. Andrey Manoylo, professor at Moscow University and member of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, is one such source, as is the Russian blogger(s) known as Kat Motja. Both agree that the surrender has taken place, and by now the term common throughout Eurasia to describe this so-called “peace treaty” is Yalta-II.

Symbolic gestures prove nothing, but include the manner in which John Kerry was treated on his March 24^th, 2016, arrival to Moscow and on his earlier May 12^th , 2015, arrival in Sochi (where he was greeted by his hosts, driving the exact car that Soviet leaders had used in 1945 to receive the German general staff surrender party). It is my opinion that the terms of US capitulation are approximately given expression in Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’s infamous “Plutonium Ultimatum”. The specific items include: 1) US acceptance of a multipolar world; 2) an end to Neocon control over US foreign policy; and 3) the elimination of Zionist aggression and a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Symbolically, the election results of November 8^th, 2016, are a slap in the face of the Neocons, who sixteen years ago placed themselves in the White House by stealing the Florida state vote (hence sealing an Electoral College win) while sacrificing the popular vote. In other words, the election results openly mock the Neocons, doing to them today exactly what they did to Al Gore in the 2000 Election.

Symbolism aside, events surrounding President Donald J. Trump’s first fifty days in office and his political appointees and cabinet secretaries demonstrate that the surrender of the United States has indeed taken place, and that its terms are very begrudgingly being carried out.

The first Presidential initiative deserving consideration has to do with Ukraine and events in the Donbass. There have been bombardments, assassinations of Donbass leaders, the destruction of hundreds of Ukrainian castigators, and even a call by Ukro-nazis to quickly reengineer nuclear weapons. Despite all, Donald Trump has refused to be drawn in (other than to demand that Kiev abide by Minsk). With a tweet or two the President has muzzled warmongers John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and he has also rebuffed all attempts by Ukrainian ministers, oligarchs and beauty contestants to meet with him. According to Russian sources, President Trump will use the Ukraine Crisis to prove to Russia and China that the United States is no longer “недоговороспособны” (incapable of abiding by treaty obligations). One might wonder why the United States, the “exceptional nation”, suddenly must prove its reliability. The most cogent explanation is that the Russian Federation, having had by 2017 a full century of cold war waged by The West against it, decided that enough was enough and initiated a process which would inexorably terminate in the pre-emptive nuclear destruction of the United States and NATO.

Realising this by late April of 2015, the United States wrenchingly sought its own salvation, which process continues today.

A reliable partner in a multi-polar world must not use transnational quorums or institutions for illegal advantage. The United States under President Trump is, in fact, changing its institutional attitude toward international bodies like the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation and the IMF.

Formerly, the world’s global institutions obeyed US dictates in return for lavish financial support (which created a sort of international political celebrity culture even including people like Bono of the rock band U2); the Trump strategy for ending this regime seems simple enough – cutting off monetary support for these neoliberal globalist structures.

No support, no obedience.

It is these structures that the United States uses to wage softening-up battles on recalcitrant nations. Economic sanctions and travel restrictions have been placed on Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and the Russian Federation (to name only a few) in order to set up their eventual conquest. Yalta-II explicitly states that such unilateral strategies are henceforth forbidden; begrudgingly, the Trump Administration in Washington DC appears to be toeing the line. Its Treasury Department in February lifted sanctions on Russia’s Federal Security Bureau. Previous to this action, President Trump had a “warm” conversation with President Putin, in which “restoration” of trade and economic ties was discussed. Trump has also voiced support for Brexit, the dissolution of the EU, and a downsizing of NATO. Most recently he has been presenting NATO members with bills that they cannot afford to pay. These are all important guarantees cementing Russian security and therefore halting her pre-emptive nuclear strike against The West.

From early on in Trump’s election campaign, defeating ISIS has occupied a central place in the candidate’s platform. Immediately after assuming office, Trump ordered his military to prepare a battle-plan that would deliver victory over the terrorist group. His generals were given thirty days to complete this task, upon pain of being relieved of their commands. Since January 20^th, the Aerospace Forces of the Russian Federation have conducted a series of strike missions unlike anything they were able to do before. They struck long hidden ISIS munitions factories, high-value arms depots, and important command centres near Deir ez-Zor, Syria (a place where the US and ISIS work together closely). These strikes indicate that Russia’s Tu-22M3 strategic bombers have new targeting intelligence supplied by the United States military. Since ISIS is one of the USA’s foreign legions, Trump’s unwavering insistence that it be totally destroyed is proof that world conquest is no longer in the works. World conquest, however, was America’s path out of twenty trillion dollars of federal government debt, one hundred trillion dollars of total private/public debt, and a whopping six hundred and fifty trillion dollars of derivatives overhang. Only one thing could force the United States to abandon this escape route, the fear of nuclear annihilation.

The escape route planners and managers were, of course, the notorious Neo-cons (essentially, the Bush-Clinton political syndicate run ultimately by the Central Intelligence Agency). President Trump’s clear proclamation, at and after his inauguration, that the United States would no longer seek hegemony over the earth threatens Neocon power throughout The West. This network is formidable, having similarities to the Gulen Network with which the nation of Turkey has to deal. Donald Trump has on at least two occasions said to them, “You Lost!” He has refused to hire the likes of John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, and Rudy Giuliani. The President has purged the State Department, threatened the CIA, initiated investigations of The Clinton Foundation, and hired his own bodyguards (rather than trust his personal safety to the Secret Service). This has culminated in an informal – and officially unacknowledged – program for assigning “political commissars” throughout the federal government to ensure that his policies are carried out. This program echoes similar historical events in Russia in 1940 and 1941 – when the shock (and here I mean the losses and physical destruction, not the surprise) of Operation Barbarossa forced Soviet STAVKA Officers to assign political commissars throughout the Red Army, so great was the temptation to give up – and earlier during the French Revolution.

Evidence of this appears in the recent reorganisation of the National Security Council, where Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus have been given permanent places (while the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have both been demoted to only attending meetings where they have been told that their expertise is relevant). The Secretary of Energy and the US representative to the UN have been kicked off of the Principals’ Committee altogether. The staffs of these committee members traditionally vet the President before he speaks to any world leader. President Trump refuses to be held ideologically captive in this way. In reaching out to President Putin, he just picked up the phone.

The Neocons are closely tied to Israel, and it is highly significant that Trump did not single out “Jews” as the victims of the Holocaust on its Remembrance Day; also, that he has stated emphatically his opposition to Zionist expansion through settlement building.

In sum, events very strongly suggest that Yalta-II exists and remains in force, and that the United States accepts 1) multipolarity, 2) the need to destroy the Neocons, and 3) the need to have peace in the Middle East.

Of course, America’s “victory culture” chafes at all of this. Former President Obama ordered a complete rebuilding of the nation’s nuclear missiles. The Congress commissioned a study by STRATCOM to determine if the nation were truly vulnerable to a Russian Federation nuclear strike. President Trump has refused to extend NEW START (an arms limitation treaty). Centcom Commander Joseph Votel has declared that Iran must be destroyed.

None of this will eventuate; there will be no overhaul of ICBMs; STRATCOM has already reported back that there is no chance of decapitating the leaders of the Russian Federation; terminating NEW START actually benefits the Russian Federation more than the USA; Iran is safe from American aggression (much less, regime change antics).

It’s too late. Yalta II exists, and will be fully implemented. 

It would be best, therefore, to openly declare the treaty and to explain its requirements and benefits to the American people and to the world.