Think of this report as if seen through a fractal lens which takes you back to an earlier day, when these quotations were originally spoken, by other actors. Then, bring your mind back to the present day, recalling what US senators actually said, and notice the contrast. The US once had a VERY DIFFERENT viewpoint regarding Europe, which we think would be refreshing to see again, in the current crisis.

Recently in the News:

Poroshenko (Ukraine):

We will not use the defensive equipment to the attack,” he said. “The stronger our defense, the more convincing is our diplomatic voice.

Merkel (Germany):

I believe that more weapons will not lead to the progress Ukraine needs,

I can’t envision any situation in which a better-equipped Ukraine military would convince President Putin that he could lose militarily.

Lindsey Graham (US):

At the end of the day, to our European friends, this is not working. You can go to Moscow until you turn blue in the face. Stand up to what is clearly a lie and a danger,

Hollande (France)

If we don’t manage to find not just a compromise but a lasting peace agreement, we know perfectly well what the scenario will be. It has a name; it’s called war,

NATO’s commander in chief General Philip Breedlove (US, NATO):

I don’t think we should preclude out of hand the possibility of the military option.

It is almost inconceivable the US Government would advocate a position in Europe, a European War, based on threatening Russia, and build this fabric on top of overthrowing the Government of Ukraine, a Russian Buffer state, as a consequence of the multi-year Eastward push of NATO.

It is one thing to wrap the EU around the ex-Soviet Bloc states. It is another to wrap a US-dominated military wrapper, NATO, around the same states. Ostensibly NATO is a defense pact, “attack one of us and you attack us all;” however, this US-led expansion has all the appearance of targeted offense, asking for War.

In another dimension of Time and Space

In breaking news, the Republican majority Senate has issues a press release as a result of its deep, prolonged, and respective thinking of the US’ role in the World:

The US needs to disengage from the trouble spots in the World and Let the Regional Powers resolve these conflicts under the UN Charter

The statement references Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain in their position on conflict in the world after their amazing participation, demanding peace, in the Munich Conference over this last weekend.

Lindsey Graham

Graham We need to remove troubling influences from Eastern Europe, especially NATO’s eastward expansion as it heightened tensions in the area, and leads to extreme right wing groups, such as the Svoboda Party, which gained power in Ukraine in 2014.

He continued:

We need to let the people who live in Ukraine resolve their differences with the help of their immediate neighbors, many who have relatives and family in Ukraine, without foreign interference, and quash any notion that the US in interested in grabbing control of the agricultural resources in Ukraine, or the energy resources and minerals in Russia, through its transnational corporate sector. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we believe in local ownership and control of local resources, to enable their largesse to benefit the people of the lands where these resources are located.

Senator John McCain concurred, saying,

The United States encouraged the formation of the European Coal & Steel Community, which evolved into the Common Market, and then the EU, to eliminate the possibility of further Europe Wars. This mechanism has become successful under the US’ tutelage and it’s time for the EU to work to build Europe’s future with Russia, and for the US to release the bounds on Europe, so that Eurasia may become the new economic power house which has become nascent in the beginning of this 21st Century.

Senator McCain added:

We believe the US will be stronger by releasing its expensive military obligations in favor of local self-determination, and then we can focus our people on building a just, and prosperous economy at home, founded on the individual exceptionalism of the American people, and its world class education system.

In addition to this, we should focus our wealth on ensuring our children graduate and become productive without the burden of huge college loans, and to achieve this end, we should redirect much of the military spending to pay off these existing loans and toward providing free college education for future generations, to avoid the crushing debt of student loans and the loans’ very deleterious effects on the future US economy.

The German and French administrations did not agree with the US’ position; a joint statement from the French and German Governments, stated:

We believe Germany and France can prevail in the confrontation with Russia, and our precise mechanism is a very logical twofold program. First we propose in rearming Germany, and its contribution to resolving this confrontation would be 20 tank regiments, as we know these are very effective in Northern Europe, and these will be deployed in a phalanx through Poland and Ukraine to the Russian border, with the tip of the Phalanx aimed at Moscow.

This First Step is knows as The Eastern Front.

Second we propose a Grand Army be formed ready to march on Moscow. Logically, this French contribution would be to raise a Grand Army of 600,000 Men, under the leadership or our new Supreme General from Corsica.

This second Step is known as: The French Invasion of Russia.

The British, in a separate press release, endorsed the French and German Plans, making it the first time in history the British and French have agreed on anything: The British Government contribution to this stability pact, and its underpinning military strategy was delivered by its Senior General, Sir Douglas Haig:

We believe the EU can raise more soldiers that Russia, and if we can kill one Russian Solder for every EU soldier killed we can win any war by building entrenched positions and waging a war of attrition.

The British Proposal is known as: World War I.

The US is seeking a way to drive Europe into a war that Europe does not want, because the US feels that the war will benefit not Europe, but America.

Sanctions are an act of War. The US has imposed sanctions on Russia, as it did on Japan before Perl Harbor. Supplying “lethal arms” to Ukrainian is not a step on the part to War, it is the start of War, because the major port suitable to deliver and support these arms is Sevastopol, which is, as we know, under Russian control.

To discharge these arms requires taking Sevastopol, and that will not be by serving an eviction notice.

If America continues on this path, it will destroy its interests and influence, and actually drive Europe into the arms of the new Eurasian block – another unintended consequence that the US does not need or seek.

We recommend the US stop trying to create a self-serving war in Europe. If it continues, it will drive its interests away from the US, and into the emerging Eurasian bloc.

If the United States insists on having its own way, even when the result will be immense harm, it lose all interests, as it has in South America.

We want America to be a strong, free, and democratic world leader. Over the past decade and a half, it has been making aggressive actions, which can only be self defeating.

We cry HALT, leash the dogs of war.