Where’s the Peacemaker?

Theodore Roosevelt – Photo gallery - NobelPrize.org

In 1904 Russia and Japan went to war over the spoils of Korea and Manchuria. It was a very punishing war, with high casualties on both sides.

U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt intervened: not by arming one side against the other, not by threats, but by offering himself and his good offices to mediate the conflict. Delegates from Russia and Japan met with him at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in the summer of 1905. Before the summer was over, they had worked out a peace agreement which both countries were able to keep.

Today we have a shooting war in Europe, Russia having invaded Ukraine. The U.S. and her allies have been pumping billions of dollars into Ukraine’s war effort. And countless state-of-the-art weaponry, too. And lunatics here and there have been talking about the war morphing into World War III and going nuclear.

What we do not have is someone of the stature of a Theodore Roosevelt to bring both sides to the peace table. Someone whom both the Russians and the Ukrainians can trust.

It’s already too late for that mediator to be an American. Too many of our leaders have already shot their mouths off. And even if President SloJo had not already made clear his sympathies with Ukraine… would you trust this idiot to end a war?

Really, I can’t think of a world leader who can meaningfully contribute to stopping this war. It would have to be someone representing a major power; no one’s going to listen to the president of Costa Rica, however wise and honest he may be.

So who does that leave? The EU leaders are not impartial.

This is a work that needs doing; but no one seems to be available.

21 comments on “Where’s the Peacemaker?

  1. In the case of Ukraine, this is a very complicated situation.

    My personal opinion is that the prize Russia seeks is access to the Black Sea. Russia took the Crimean Peninsula, but have no land bridge to the Crimea. For centuries, the leaders of Russia have desired a warm water port from which to project power. As massive as Russia is, and as powerful as Russia has the potential to be, Russia has always been hindered by the fact that they do not have warm water access to the seas from any of their industrial or population centers.

    In support of this conclusion (on my part), I submit that Mr. Erdogan, leader of Turkey, has become much more conciliatory since the invasion of Ukraine. One glance at a map of the region explains this. If Russia gains land access to the Black Sea, the next bottleneck, from the Russian point of view, becomes Turkey, which controls the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, both of which must be passed through in order to reach the Mediterranean. Simply put, if Russia succeeds, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up with, at least, a narrow land bridge to the Crimean Peninsula, then suddenly, the control of Turkey becomes very important.

    Let’s step back, slightly, and reframe this. Just a few years ago, NATO seemed all but obsolete in the minds of many, but it has become pivotal, given Mr. Putin’s agenda. The Ukraine was pushing to become a NATO member, which meant that the Russians, even though they had taken the Crimea, would have had two NATO Allie’s at least influencing, if not outright controlling their access to the Mediterranean. Turkey is a NATO member, and has a large standing army. While they seemed somewhat detached, given their leader’s attachment to the Muslim Brotherhood, they are of great significance in the cohesion of NATO. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that NATO would fragment without Turkey, but I would go so far as to say that NATO’s power would be diminished noticeably without control of access between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.

    If Russia can gain ready access to the Mediterranean, they can project power into the Middle East, much more easily. Hey! Do you smell anything? I’m pretty sure that I just caught the scent of money. 🙂 Almost everything reduces to money, at some point or another. The Leviathon gas field lies on the Mediterranean coast of Israel, and holds the potential to sell gas to Europe, which places it in direct competition with Russia, as an energy producer.

    That is just one incentive that Russia has to project power into the Middle East. As with all things Middle Eastern, there are plenty of incentives to choose from, not to mention the fact that Russia’s free passage to the Mediterranean through the Gibraltar Straits could be interrupted relatively easily, and you end up with a lot of incentive. It’s not all that much of a stretch to imagine the Russia might also seek access to the Baltic Sea, which is why Finland and Sweden are now seeking to join NATO. From the standpoint of Moscow, Finland and Sweden, together, would be a massive prize, giving Russia direct access to the North Sea, and essentially, much greater leverage in the North Atlantic. If I were Sweden or Finland, I’d be very interested in NATO, about now.

    The names may change, but the fundamentals remain the same, throughout written history. Sea power has been very important since the earliest development of seaworthy vessels. The Vikings used the seas to great advantage, Spain had their Invincible Armada and then Britain created an empire upon which the Sun never set, and this was all before steamships. Now, with nuclear powered ships, maritime might is even more important. As best I understand it, there are US submarines stationed so as to protect Scandinavia, as we speak.

    Could this situation be resolved through negotiation? I wouldn’t claim to know. Perhaps some sort of agreement could be reached, if there were adequate economic incentives, but that carries with it a significant risk, because economic incentives for Russia would equate to Russia having the ability to use its role as an energy supplier as economic blackmail. Actually, that situation already exists.

    The reasons for the current situation are multi-lithic. Some have their roots in the history of the last 18 months, while others date far further back into history. The pressures that affect the various sides of the issue are very deeply rooted, and recent foreign policy has allowed these to surface, once again. The more I learn about history, the more convinced I become that most conflicts have very deep roots. World War II was dominant in the thoughts of my parent’s generation, but WWI was sImply a reshuffling of WW I, with a few changes in alliance, but very much the same basic issues.

    Much of WW I revolved around the Ottomans, and the end of that war drew the current map of the Middle East, as the British and French mandates saw fit. Mostly forgotten, was the Japanese Mandate, which gave the Japanese power over many of the Pacific islands, and set the stage for the Pacific Theater of WW II. Japan is a nation of great potential, but lacks natural resources of its own, so it’s hardly surprising that the Japanese Mandate created the situation of WW II.

    Just as WW II was a rethink of the settlement of WW I, many of the wars since WW II have sought to change certain aspects of the conclusion of WW II. North and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, for example, were all about these matters. The Iron Curtain tensions of Europe were certainly artifacts of WW II, and now we are seeing “neutral” nations from that war deciding that it’s time to choose sides.

    I write this tome, merely, to point out that, as shocking as many find the invasion of Ukraine, in the context of history, it’s not all that shocking, but another chapter in an ongoing struggle, that is very deeply rooted in geographical and economic realities. Even since I started writing this, there is word that Putin may be deposed, and further rumors that his health is failing. IMHO, Putin himself, will settle for no less than a land bridge to the Crimea, but those who will inevitably succeed him, may settle for less, or possibly insist on even more.

    In 1979, I was a young man, just getting started in life, and was dismayed by the economic and political events going on around me. Keep in mind, also, that there was a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan at the time, which also turned into a debacle for the invaders. I bought new vehicles frequently during that t8me frame, in great part because I could hardly dream of owning a home. Then, quite suddenly, everything changed. In 1981, I was making $400 per week, gross, and when the tax cuts came along, I saw my take home go from $250 per week to $325. That was mind bending, and in the financial context of 1981, that wasn’t bad money. In the years since, I saw my personal prosperity, as well as the prosperity of many other people, increase greatly. The Iron Curtain collapsed at the end of the ‘80s, and the standard of living improved in many, many places.

    In the recent past, it seems like we are reliving 1979, but I would not be so bold as to say where we will be 2-3 years from now. It could become very bad, or, matters could improve, yet again. I suspect that, as terrible as the Ukrainian war is, this situation will pass. A year ago, few people in the West, could find Ukraine on the map, and a year from now, the Ukraine may no longer be front page news. I pray for the innocent in Ukraine every night, but who knows where things will stand a year from now?

    One thing, however, stands out in sharp relief; the lessons of the late ‘70s were not lost upon myself, or many others of my generation. We were “woke”, and I even recall that terminology being used, at the time. Very suddenly, my generation got a lesson in reality, in great part because of the political failures of the late ‘70s. I was a product of the woke propaganda of the ‘60s, and somewhat influenced by the Leftist agenda that was creeping into the public schools, even 60 years ago. So, it’s at least possible that the Millennial generation will learn, just as my generation learned. As one person wittily stated, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme”

    1. keep your eyes on Turkey. Have you read the book by Joel Richardson titled Islamic i Antichrist ?

    2. I’ve read most of the book and agree, to some extent. My personal opinion is that Turkey will be a part of the Gog of Magog attack. I know that in the past, Richardson has argued that Gog of Magog was likely spearheaded by Turkey, but I think it’s more likely that Turkey will be in alliance with Russia and Persia in this invasion. Russia’s interest in the Ukraine strikes me as supporting this conclusion.

      Got of Magog is spoken of as being “from the uttermost parts of the north” and Russia is about as far north as a land can be, from the perspective of Israel. My personal take is that Russia will, at some point, ally themselves with Persia and Turkey to invade Israel. It could be that Turkey participates under political, economic, or even military, pressure. Turkey has taken a different direction in recent years, and appears to be ideologically closer to Iran than it used to be, so it’s not all that surprising to think that Turkey could leave behind any ties they had to the West and join in such an alliance.

      The events of the last two months strike me as pat of the run-up to the Gog of Magog invasion.

    3. Always bearing in mind that ancient invaders of Israel (Assyria, Babylon) always came from the north because they couldn’t cross the Arabian Desert.

    4. The wording in Ezekiel is uttermost parts of the north. I would assume, this being an inspired verse, that the term uttermost was deliberately chosen.

    5. BTW, I forgot to mention that Turkey has stated that it would veto the admission of Finland and Sweden into NATO, so that shift in alliance may already be underway.

  2. The President of Ukraine before Zelensky was voted in by the people. He was for Ukraine joining the Eurasia Economic Union, but with the CIA;s and George Soros help he was ousted by a coup and Zelensky was voted in who is all for joining NATO (as he shut down all the opposing political parties against him). After all, President Bill Clinton had told Ukraine if they gave all their nuclear weapons back to Russia, the USA would protect them from Russia. If Zelensky lived in America he would be an extreme Left-wing Democrat – so why all the praise about what a great man he is? It’s all FAKE NEWS! The globalists want this war because war (and pandemics) are the best way to further their agenda to a new New World Order. Have you ever read Orwell’s “1984?” There were several regions that seemingly were at war with each other but really were not. Regional, or what they like to call “multi-polar regions,” is the goal so there are no longer any sovereign nations but regions like the EU is today being ruled by Brussels),

    1. It does trouble me that absolutely the ONLY news we ever heard of Ukraine, before the Russians invaded, was scandals involving American politicians.
      If the Dems cheat their way through this year’s midterms, we’re probably finished.

  3. Turkey is now in great financial distress, and looking to “take a spoil” wherever it is found, and a people who were once more west friendly, are one of the leading countries who are vehemently opposed to Israel and the friends of Israel.

    1. Good point. I doubt that most of the Turkish people are behind Erdogan. As best I understand, he faced significant opposition.

    2. Indeed, they are hurting, financially. The Turkish Lira has lost a lot of value. The prophecy in Ezekiel speaks of hooks being put 8n the jaws of Gog, and financial woes are a very effective way to draw a nation into action, so this makes a lot of sense.

      One thing that is frequently misunderstood, with regard to this prophecy, is that this deliverance is not for sake of Israel. It is not a reward for Israel, and in fact 2/3 of Israeli lives are predicted to be lost. This is not for the sake of Israel, but os for the sake of God’s name. The stated purpose of this, is to make the nations to know the name of the LORD.

      When the promise was made to Abram, the blessing was for the sake of the nations, though Abram’s seed. Many times, in scripture, Israel is criticized for being stiff necked. Their chosen state was not and easy path, and it was no surprise that they failed to live up to God’s requirements. God established Israel is His territory, and gave it to Abram’s seed when the iniquity of the Hittites became so great that they were vomited out of the land. While Abram found favor in God’s eyes and was given a promise, it was also told to that nation that they would be cast out of that promised land if they failed to obey, However, their future restoration was always promised. This is not for Israel’s sake, but for the sake of God’s name, showing that he keeps His promises; especially the promise to Abram that all nations will be blessed by Abram’s seed.

Leave a Reply