US wants neither peace nor dialogue: some voices call for disintegration of Russia

Dialogue and diplomacy are hampered by US exceptionalism.

Uriel Araujo, researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts

The US-led West is not interested in peace or in any kind of compromise to put an end to the current conflict in Ukraine. According to University of Chicago political science professor John Mearsheimer, “Western leaders have additional goals, which include regime change in Moscow, putting Putin on trial as a war criminal, and possibly breaking up Russia into smaller states.” Journalist Anchal Vohra, writing for Foreign Policy, tells us that “Western analysts and Russian dissidents” have been publicly calling for the “decolonization of Russia itself”

Take, for example, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (an independent US. government agency): already in 2022, Vohra reminds us, it published a report called “Decolonizing Russia”, which declared that such decolonizing should be “a moral and strategic objective.” 

This extreme stance is not a “reaction” to the escalation of the ongoing conflict (but rather one of its external causes); in fact, such views are nothing new at all. Take, for instance, the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, the influential diplomat and foreign policy expert who served as a national advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter: he openly called for the further fragmentation of Russia (after the collapse of the Soviet state). In his 1997 Foreign Affairs piece, he called for a “loosely confederated Russia – composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic and a Far Eastern Republic.” Brzezinski advocated all this while also speaking about  “America’s global primacy” – extending all the way over to the Eurasiatic landmass too, of course. According to him, the US should “perpetuate the prevailing geopolitical pluralism on the map of Eurasia”, so as to prevent even “the remote possibility of any one state” seeking to “challenge America’s primacy”. To put it simply, for the American establishment, Russian simply cannot be. 

This attitude, distorted as it is, makes some sense, from a certain American perspective, focused on global supremacy and the pursuit and maintenance of unipolarity. This has been shaped by the geopolitical thinking of Sir Halford John Mackinder and his concept of the struggle for the Heartland, and also by US Navy captain Alfred Thayer Mahan (and his 1890 The Atlantic article“The United States Looking Outward”). One must also add American exceptionalism to geopolitical thinking – that in turn can be traced back to the Puritan’s biblical metaphor about the “city upon a hill”. 

We are talking about a nation that, according to retired Navy captain Jerry Hendrix (formerly an adviser to Pentagon senior officials), engages in land wars, while also seeking naval hegemony.  Furthermore, it is actively pursuing a dual containment policy against both Russia and China, simultaneously. When it comes to Great Powers, for the United States, there can only be one.

Under this framework, Washington has consistently refused to acknowledge Moscow’s global role as the Great Power it is. American rhetoric up to early 2022 routinely described Russia as a “paper tiger” and a “declining power”. NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated on December 16, 2021 that “Russia is a power in decline, meaning the economic importance of Russia, the GDP is not keeping track with many other countries in the world”, albeit, at the same time, adding that “even an economy in decline and a power in economic decline can be a threat and a challenge.” This contradictory view could be seen mirrored in US President Joe Biden’s July 2022 dismissing remarks about Moscow “sitting on top of an economy that has nuclear weapons and oil wells and nothing else.” This denial attitude goes so far as to deny Russia’s role as a regional power even.

Many post-Soviet states have sought to maintain their ties with Moscow, which is exemplified by their ongoing adhesion over the last years to economic and security alliances such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and, more recently, the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).  This reflects geoeconomic and geopolitical convergent interests which are a function of both geography and history: Russian civilization has a common history and has for centuries kept economic, political, and religious relations with a number of Slavic and Turkic peoples as well as many other ethnic groups.

In denial of all such basic facts and data, from an American perspective, Moscow is not to have even a “zone of influence” of its own. Moreover, for many influential US policy makers, political scientists, and thinkers (as we’ve seen) Russia should in fact cease to exist altogether as a polity.

Earlier attempts to “cancel” Russia into irrelevance or into virtual “non-existence” should thus be seen as examples of this peculiar mindset. The refusal to realistically and properly assess Moscow’s role and status in the global arena is not merely Western wishful thinking: the American Establishment seems to be unable to think of its own country outside of the context of a unipolar world. The very existence of a Russian state is thus perceived as a threat.

Rather than prolonging a proxy attrition war (which the Europeans themselves are tired of) “to the last Ukrainian”, responsible leaders should engage in good diplomacy and lots of table talks, which are needed more than ever, so as to minimize the risk of a global thermonuclear war (a scenario no one can afford). However, any such dialogue is hampered, among other things, by American exceptionalism.


  • The AC requires full spectrum dominance and that includes poisoning the population, in order to track survivors. A Russian spokesperson stated, “A world without Russia, is not a world worth living in.” The megalomaniacs understand that further aggression will force a nuclear confrontation and they have a plan for ruling over the ashes.

    • Joh 18:33  Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 
      Joh 18:34  Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 
      Joh 18:35  Pilate answered, Am I a Jew?

      -Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?-

      Joh 18:36  Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 
      Joh 18:37  Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered,

      -Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 

      Joh 18:38  Pilate saith unto him,
      –What is truth? (Jezus is the Truth, Jezus the Nazarene means “Redeemer of the Truth”, how many people this day use the frase what Pilate said here?)
      And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them,

      -I find in him no fault at all.

      Joh 19:15  But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, ( CURSE HIM, CURSE HIM) crucify (on a stick of wood is a curse according Law of Moses, it’s no cross there) him. Pilate saith unto them,
      Shall I crucify (rome crucifiction sentenced with their common values in that day on a wooden cross) YOUR KING? The chief priests answered,


      Joh 19:19  And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was,


      Joh 19:20  This title then read MANY of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in

      Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. 

      Joh 19:21  Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not,

      The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. 

      Joh 19:22  Pilate answered,

      -What I have written I have written.

      They are not jews if they not believe that Yahusha is HA’MASHIACH, they became the church of satan and began to counter and start following THE TALMUD, because that way they can kill after their own lusts and motivations and keep claiming their own spilled herritage as God people, it’s out of despair, THEY KNOW THEY DETRONED THEMSELVES FROM YAHUAH, their king is ceasar till this day and don’t even want to acknowledge that, they are aware of these sayings back in the days of Jezus judgment, that’s why it is written in the Gospel, Yahuah always points the liar and traitor out, always. The cross has 2 different meanings and the jews used it for their own gain, a sentence and a curse, both outside of the city.
      We can never be amalek like they see us and how they want to destroy the west and see us that way after the talmud, their paradigm shift to keep their position, but they created the west to destroy us after talmud torah, they want to give themselfs mercy and are the church of satan, just like Jezus said.

      God Blesses, Peace and Grace, Repent and forgive eachother,

      Mat 22:37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 
      Mat 22:38  This is the first and great commandment. 

      Mat 22:39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 
      Mat 22:40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the PROPHETS. 

      • A Living Sacrifice
        Rom 12:1  I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 
        Rom 12:2  And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 
        Gifts of Grace
        Rom 12:3  For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 

Leave a Reply