History has a tendency to rhyme.

There is one move on the geopolitical chessboard that can put all of the U.S. and President Trump’s problems into an immediate checkmate.  However, the forces against the alignment are significant. If President Trump can end the Ukraine-Russia conflict and end the sanctions regime against Russia, everything changes.

Bringing Russian oil, gas and natural resources back into the global economy not only removes all leverage held by Iran, but it also wipes out intransigent resistance against the geopolitical reset and upends over a hundred years of EU and Commonwealth financial manipulation.

Not only does the Iran problem immediately shift, but so too does any/all leverage carried by Canada on behalf of London and the broader commonwealth structure.  With a U.S-Russia strategic economic alliance, something factually stated at the end of every message from Moscow, the dynamics of global structures is entirely different.  However, all the oppositional interests are well aware of the consequence and their actions reflect it.

The United States and Russia ended World War II.  A U.S-Russia alliance would change everything.

Who would benefit from such a strategic partnership?  The USA, Russia, India, China, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States (GCC), ASEAN countries and even Japan and the Caribbean, including Cuba.

Who would oppose such a seismic shift?  The U.K, specifically the financial constructs within the City of London, Canada, the EU-NATO states, all the Commonwealth countries and the Five-Eyes group (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the U.K and the U.S. Intelligence Community).

Now we have appropriate context for the dynamic of the issue, along with context for exactly why all oppositional elements are conducting current activity.  A strategic partnership between the U.S. and Russia represents an existential threat to all the old systems – everything.

The first step would be solving the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So, let’s look at that problem specifically and how a transactional approach might frame the four corners of an end to it.

Russia now occupies approximately 20% of the Ukraine land mass in eastern Ukraine and they are not going to ever concede it again.  For the Federation of Russia, represented by Vladimir Putin and the overwhelming majority of those within influence inside the Federation, the NATO encroachment is an existential threat long term.

Russia views the objective of the legacy system powers as intent on taking Russia apart.  Ukraine represents their immediate shot to stop this from happening.  All prior agreements and treaties by EU and NATO agreements were violated.  Russia will no longer allow the wolves to circle their camp.

Looking at the challenge through the transactional prism, a ceasefire may include Russia retaining their current land gains, while giving up the confiscated $500 billion sovereign wealth fund as the purchase price.  The fund could be considered reparations by Zelenskyy and his EU-NATO handlers, it matters not.  What matters more than the sovereign wealth fund in this transaction, is the elimination of western sanctions.

With sanctions removed, immediately the Russian economy surges with sales of oil, gas, minerals and raw materials back to the global market.  With the Iran conflict still afoot all that oil and gas carries a higher value.  That is the pricing dynamic that makes loss of the Russian sovereign wealth fund more contextualized.  However, with all of those abundant natural resources now back in the global supply chain, the leverage for all other western countries that rely on their natural resources, specifically Canada, is diminished.

Russian oil and gas could flow immediately and easily back into Europe.  Currently, the power structures within the EU, those more concerned about raw power and control than the financial health and livelihood of their citizens, are against a return of cheap and abundant energy.  They should think about the return of lower energy costs as a value to their economies and people; however, the EU ‘leaders’ are more concerned about the geopolitical reset -ultimately their diminished power, that would lay in the background.

As a consequence, the EU doesn’t really care about how much financial benefit there would be to their economic condition. For them this is a zero-sum power issue.  Just as Russia doesn’t want to be torn apart by the grand ambitions of London, so too does the EU not want to lose the power to assist in the tearing apart aspect.

The rest of the problem is one of the future. A problem of security guarantees; of agreements that are bolstered against some significant non-wavering constant that can ensure no further expansion of NATO intent and no further threat to create purposeful conflict.  The United States has constant regime changes, that takes the U.S. out of the ability to be the guarantor.  However, THAT level of security guarantee is possible through the one construct that has put tentacles into every geopolitical economic structure in the world, CHINA.

There is a visible deal where President Trump sets up the transactional end to the conflict, the payments and economic mechanisms that conclude the Ukraine-Russia war, while Chairman Xi sets up the security guarantee aspect by leveraging everything that Beijing has created for decades.

As paradigm resetting as that sounds, it’s not impossible.  In fact, I would argue that’s exactly what China is saying HERE.

[Non-Paywall Link]

The Washington Post is getting the direction correct, but they are unaware of the destination.

TDS infects all media analysis.  They put the review of Chairman Xi’s comments through the prism of anti-Trumpism.  That’s not at all what this looks like to me.

From my perspective, Trump is looking to solve problems beyond his tenure in the White House.  After all, how many times has each Trump supporter said, “well yeah – great, but what happens after Trump leaves office?”

Think about it carefully, through the prism of peace and stability – while understanding that President Trump is structuring long-term U.S. economic stability and retaining the perspective that Beijing influence in U.S. economic matters must be removed.

Handle the transaction.  Solve the Ukraine-Russia crisis.  Form a strategic partnership and build fortress north America.  Leverage the systems that Beijing has already put in place, including leverage upon the EU, and make Chairman Xi the minder for everything OUTSIDE our hemisphere.

President Trump looks to have gamed this out quite well.

The tool that cuts the gordian knot is in the relationship.

“Security Guarantees!”

It’s a phrase you see in every discussion of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. However, has anyone ever paused to look at the other side of the equation?

The U.S. led NATO alliance has violated every agreement and accord ever established between NATO and Russia.

Every agreement constructed by the USA is but one presidential election away from being nullified, ignored and manipulated by the western financial interests who control the geopolitics behind it.

We think, because we have been trained to think, about the term “security guarantee” through the prism of western interests. Against the reality of the situations we have created, we should think about the term from both directions.

The greatest thing U.S. President Donald Trump could do for the long-term interests of global stability, would be to support and assist in the construction of an equalizing element. President Trump should support the other side of a security guarantee that frames China as the guarantor against NATO encroachment toward the Russian Federation.

The U.S-EU/NATO coalition can be on one side of the ledger. If Russia makes hostile western moves, NATO responds. However, if U.S-EU/NATO elements make hostile moves against Russia, then China responds.

If the U.S/NATO genuinely has no adversarial intents toward expanded conflict, then such a security guarantee poses no concern. We should embrace such a system.

If, however, the U.S/NATO alliance is duplicitous, as has been the historic outcome, then allied elements would oppose such a system.

“Security Guarantees” should mean something. And that something should exist regardless of who is the United States President.