Required Constitutional Rewriting to End US War on Russian Speaking Ukrainians

With thanks to Karl Sanchez
From Karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium

In order to come to the defense of Russian speaking Ukrainians attacked by the Outlaw US Empire in 2014, Russia entered into a series of alterations to its Constitution to admit those regions no longer desiring to be part of the longstanding artificial political construct known as Ukraine. The artificial political nature of what’s known as Ukraine—how it was cobbled together over several centuries by the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and two world wars—is well known by historians and is an established fact regardless of the current attempts to alter that fact. This essay’s aim isn’t to dispute that fact but to show the only way to a peaceful resolution of the Outlaw US Empire’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent armed conflict aimed at destroying its Russian speaking population is via the complete redrawing of the borders of what we’ll continue to call Ukraine and the necessary alteration of Ukraine’s Constitution that’s already been shredded by those forces that invaded. What will be discussed are the changes to the physical nature of Ukraine brought about by the Special Military Operation (SMO) to free Russian speakers from the tyranny imposed by Outlaw US Empire and their NATO oppressors—it goes without saying that Ukraine lost what sovereignty it had when it was invaded by the Outlaw US Empire in 2014 and had an alien government installed controlled by the Empire, and that sovereignty has never been restored.

The argument made by the current illegitimate president of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky is that the Ukrainian Constitution doesn’t allow for any territorial alterations, so he must wage war until those territories that voted to leave, join Russia and are now incorporated into the Russian Constitution are recaptured. However, the realism told on the battlefield tells a very different story along with the atrocities by Ukrainian and NATO Nazi troops committed since the 2014 invasion. Also affecting the solution is a realistic assessment of the historical past of the various extremist groups claiming to be Ukrainian Nationalists that are currently allied with the Outlaw US Empire and NATO and have been supported by them since 1945 as admitted by US government documents.

One of Russia’s SMO aims is the Denazification of Ukraine. The history of Nationalist extremism is well over 100 years old and the current generation’s indoctrination is such that seeds are sown for that extremism to continue. Thus, any realist expectation for 100% Denazification must be seen as utopian. That realization is what prompted Russian President Putin to announce the need for a buffer zone to separate the future Ukraine from the Russian and Union States. Logic dictates that the buffer zone be incorporated into Russian territory so it can be properly administered by Russia and perhaps settled by Cossacks as such borderlands once were.

Here’s the general map Medvedev proposed:

The current battlefield situation is in flux since the Ukrainian extremists and their Western backers don’t want the conflict to end—their announced goal remains the same: To inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. As a result, Russia continues to gain territory that was previously part of Greater Russia. This fact makes it necessary to look at what part of Ukraine is the extremist’s heartland.

This map suggests that area:

The region to the West of the green area on the above map is generally where that heartland’s located. There’s a general correlation with Medvedev’s map. However, the territorial solution is only one aspect of what must be accomplished. In order to satisfy the desires of those remaining within Ukraine, they must be offered a choice of which political entity they want to reside within—The Russian Federation, the new Ukraine, or some other nation having a historical portion of the current Ukraine, Poland for example —which would be accomplished via referendum. However, there’s a prerequisite for that vote—the people must be allowed to know what sort of constitutional regime they’ll be deciding to reside within. Russia or another already existing nation obviously presents an already existing Constitution that would require subsequent amending to admit whatever new areas are incorporated into Russia or other nation. On the other hand, Ukraine will need a completely revamped Constitution that realizes the results of the conflict, defines its future behavior toward its citizens, international organizations and international norms. Who will be the Constitution’s composers then becomes the issue followed by the issue of approval—by the UN most likely. Of special interest to all—Russia in particular—will be how the historical problem of extremist Ukrainian Nationalists will be dealt with. The expectation of very strong political opposition to a factual approach to the issue given the clear continuing belligerence of NATO and the Outlaw US Empire in the nations in close proximity to Russia—Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia—is a potential hindrance to arriving at an agreeable and timely draft Constitution that can be submitted for approval to the UN.

The further issue of security guarantees sought by all sides demands an international agreement that can be based of some previously broken OSCE treaties that provided for Indivisible Security. Russia has proposed a Eurasian wide security system, while China had proposed its Global Security Initiative which a super majority of nations already favor where its key appealing feature is the elimination of Hegemony. Both proposals are actually based on the UN Charter which is also a universal global peace treaty that has never been completely obeyed by the Outlaw US Empire, its vassals, and other entities—former colonial nations and the victims of South Asian Partition being prime examples. As we saw with the three OSCE Treaties, they were all broken by NATO’s expansion. Finland recently broke its treaty with the USSR/Russia of “everlasting neutrality,” and the remnants of Ukraine’s Constitution says it’s to be a neutral nation too. So, it’s clear treaties can easily be broken by nations choosing to be Outlaws, although their populace often never has a say in the matter. Thus, the issues of Trust and Credibility become paramount—Who will ensure the guarantors of security act properly? That was the duty the UN Security Council was formulated to perform. Thus, Humanity is again faced with the same big issue it faced 80 years ago.

In closing, it must be noted that Alastair Crooke noted Ukraine is a “Slavic State” not a “European State,” which was a rather profound statement to make that unfortunately sits at the heart of the very longstanding animus with Europe between the primary ethnic groups—Germanic/Celtic peoples and Slavs—that formed the basis for both World Wars and the atrocities associated with both. Russia seems to have decided to turn to its Eastern roots as the best way to solve this problem, but the Slavic states to its West still face the old animus—Serbia is the obvious example. Perhaps solving Ukraine will help removing the elite forces that drive the animus for their own gain at the expense of their own peoples and peace. Human Rights are clearly at the forefront of the Ukraine and overall European problems, which have continued for far too long. It’s time to end them, and the idea that any people are exceptional or superior to another. All Humanity demands a just solution. This is one.