When Donetsk & Luhansk Fall, Will Sanctions Against Russia Be Lifted?

Vladimir Putin has not intervened in Eastern Ukraine. He could have. He could have stopped Western Ukraine from bombarding cities and villages in far-Eastern Ukraine. He chose not to. Did he choose wisely?

303,00He will have a cost to pay for not intervening to save ethnic Russians, but he will have avoided a potentially (likely) much more destructive and fatal war.

In addition, he will be in a position to point to the fact that he did not roll into Ukraine and thereby demand, and rightly so, that all sanctions against Russia be immediately and completely lifted.

What possible excuse could Barack Obama offer up to keep them in place? Crimea still? Please!

There would be no excuse that wouldn't be blatantly anti-Russian for the sake of US (NATO) imperialism. What Putin properly termed "unfair trade practices." That's putting it mildly.

Russia also won't be placed in the troubling position of having to cut off gas supplies as more Western sanctions would be heaped on Russia were Russia to intervene militarily.

Lastly, with the sanctions lifted and with Russia having proved itself no aggressor but rather restrained in the extreme, Russia will regain a full voice in the world, including the West, and will be in a position to aid ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine who may want to emigrate to Russia. He'll be able to better insist that Ukraine not continue persecuting and oppressing (abusing) ethnic Russians.

I'm certainly not convinced that things will all turn out per the above, but they might.

Ukrainian forces have surrounded Donetsk, which had a population of one million prior to the mass exodus of residents. A Ukrainian military spokesman on Monday said Kyiv's forces were getting ready to take the city from the pro-Russian separatists. Ukraine's military has already cut Donetsk off from the other main city held by separatists, Luhansk, on the Russian border.

"The forces of the 'anti-terrorist operation' are preparing for the final stage of liberating Donetsk. Our forces have completely cut Donetsk off from Luhansk. We are working for liberating both towns but it's better to liberate Donetsk first - it is more important," military spokesman Andriy Lysenko told the Reuters news agency.

Source: Prisoners break out of jail in aftermath of eastern Ukraine shelling | News | DW.DE | 11.08.2014.

What a farce calling it liberation. That's not even well-played false propaganda. It's just too stupid.

See also:
"Ukraine MH17 may be CIA false flag and it ain’t flying," by William Engdahl
US: Images Allegedly Prove Russia Attacking Ukraine
Take Note: "What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine?" by Investigative reporter Robert Parry | Consortiumnews
US Bases Claims Against Russia on Fake, Out-of-Context Social-Media Video?

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.