- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Impeachment & the Deep State’s War on Russia


US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland meeting with Ukrainian President-elect Petro Poroshenko in June 2014.

2,883 words

A denationalized foreign policy has many heads and hearts, but no soul. It supports imperialism in one part of the world and opposes it in another. It upholds human rights in some areas; in others it honors and rewards the violators of those rights. It gives money and arms to anti-American governments, but boycotts pro-American governments . . . Not only America but most of the world has lived to regret the day the Majority [i.e. white Americans with northern European ethnicity, often with ancestors among the original settlers] lost control of American foreign policy. There is nothing more dangerous in international relations than misdirected energy, nothing more tragic than a great nation that expends its greatness blindly. Until the special interests of the minorities and the special enthusiasms of liberals are again made subservient to the national interest, America’s diplomatic incoherence will continue to be one of the great destabilizing forces in the world social order . . . A foreign policy directed by lobbies instead of statesmen is worse than no foreign policy at all.
— Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority

President Clinton’s impeachment was much ado about nothing. Things were going well for America in the 1990s, and he was impeached for a private peccadillo. It was a disaster for America in that it made a lurid sex scandal the center of the American conversation when we should have been talking about the ever-increasing threat of radical Islam. But because America was so distracted by the hubbub over Clinton getting a sweet, sweet beeje [2] from Monica, we got 9/11 and long-term war.

President Trump’s impeachment is far more serious. After watching the hearings, I’ve come to conclude that Trump did nothing wrong, but the hearings themselves are shedding light upon longstanding flaws in American foreign policy that have accelerated since the end of the Cold War.

These flaws, on the proverbial half sheet of notepaper, are:

  1. The foreign service has gone from being led by the traditional American foreign policy experts – WASPs from good families – to today’s lot, who have been shaped by the “civil rights” revolution. They have achieved high offices by denying their ethnic interests. They also misread data in the same way all white believers in “civil rights” do.
  2. As a result of American whites not conducting foreign policy to serve their own interests, there is no clear foreign policy goal and no consensus as to what to do. Any lobbying group can hijack the process.
  3. The United States defends people who are wealthy while at the same time being hostile to Americans in some way. Israel, South Korea, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are the most egregious examples.
  4. The United States has entered into alliances with nations that are economically poor, difficult to defend, and yet have powerful enemies: the Baltics, Poland, Romania, the Philippines, and Bulgaria. In the event of war with Russia, the Baltic Sea might become too dangerous for shipping, meaning that America will have a very difficult time defending those nations.
  5. The US has involved itself with basket-case nations when containment or indifference was an option: Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan after Osama bin Laden’s death.
  6. American foreign policy is often directed by foreign pressure groups. Israel is the most powerful of these, and many other nations seek to guarantee Israel’s success.
  7. Non-Americans are able to enter US political establishment and direct its actions against nations which pose no threat to America based on their own ethnic animus.

Ukraine since the Soviet Collapse

At the center of the impeachment hearing is American involvement in Ukraine. American involvement there, as currently arranged, is the result of the interplay of the flaws above. Central to this is the organized Jewish[1] [3] community’s collective ethnic animus towards Russia and Russians. This animus is the only logical explanation for American involvement in Ukraine today.

To understand this, one needs some background. In 1991, the Soviet Union was falling apart. Then President George H. W. Bush, a Yankee whose ancestors settled in Connecticut, gave a speech in Kiev encouraging Ukraine to remain a part of Russia. He said [4]:

We cannot tell you how to reform your society. We will not try to pick winners and losers in political competitions between republics [i.e. Soviet Socialist Republics] or between republics and the center. That is your business; that’s not the business of the United States of America. Do not doubt our real commitment, however, to reform. But do not think we can presume to solve your problems for you. . . . Freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.

Bush’s remarks were immediately dubbed “the Chicken Kiev Speech” by the Jew William Safire, a columnist for The New York Times.

Bush’s advice was ignored. Ukraine became independent, retaining the same territorial borders as it had in the Soviet Union. The problem was that Ukraine was not an ethnostates, but a polity. Its borders were the result of the Soviet Union’s administrative choices in the 1950s rather than ethnicity. In the west, the population is Ukrainian, and their spiritual culture is marked by the Uniate Church (a branch of Roman Catholicism that incorporates some Eastern Orthodox practices, being theologically simplistic), and in the east the population is ethnically Russian and Eastern Orthodox. Samuel Huntington wrote in his classic study of the post-Cold War World, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, that Ukraine was a “cleft country,” meaning that it was situated on the fault line between the Western and Orthodox civilizations. Trouble was sure to arise.


The results of the 1994 Ukrainian presidential election shows the ethnic divide.

Samuel Huntington saw three possibilities for Ukraine:[2] [6]

  1. Armed conflict.
  2. Ukraine breaks up. “The issue of secession first came up with respect to Crimea.” In 1991, Russian Crimea almost voted to succeed from Ukraine, but held off. In 1992, the Russian Duma voted to cancel the 1954 administrative adjustment within the Soviet Union which transferred Crimea from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR.
  3. Ukraine remains united, closely cooperating with Russia, but with a touchy internal division that is simultaneously manageable, potentially rewarding, and potentially dangerous, similar to the Franco-German relationship in Western Europe.

We see that the first and second options are what happened: Today, Russia again controls Crimea. The war in Ukraine is a high-tech, high intensity war which includes dogfights in the air and massive artillery bombardments. Most people who read Huntington’s book likely took it to be a handbook to avoid the Third World War. In retrospect, however, it seems that the organized Jewish community saw Huntington’s book as a guide for war with Russia, and they used functionaries in the Deep State to make the war happen.

The Deep State’s War with Russia

Ethnonationalist Jews[3] [7] in America were sympathetic to the Soviet Union thorough most of the Cold War and became anti-Russian as soon as the Soviet Union dissolved in the early 1990s (I saw this personally on a very small scale). Many American Jews went to Russia to collude with Russian Jews in the early 1990s in the pilfering of the state’s industries, such as the Jew Larry Summers [8]. The first blow – or near-blow – against Russia in this new geopolitical reality occurred during the 1999 Kosovo War. Then, a Russian paratrooper unit captured the airport at Pristina. The American commander, General Wesley Clark (a Jew), ordered a British unit to “destroy” the Russians. The British commander refused the order and an accommodation was made with the Russians that avoided war, and General Clark was quietly removed from command later. Clark’s recklessness wasn’t revealed publicly until years after the Clinton administration ended.

When the neoconservatives came to power in the George W. Bush administration, the United States began to interfere in Ukrainian affairs by launching a series of “color revolutions.” This trend accelerated with the Obama administration. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland spent $5 billion [9] to father exacerbate the divisions within Ukraine, which led to the 2014 Maidan demonstrations, and in turn the ongoing Ukrainian civil war.

The organized Jewish community’s support for increasing tensions with Russia over Ukraine explains why Hillary Clinton was so concerned over Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election. As Secretary of State, she had been involved in the Deep State’s war with Russia. Additionally, Jews are a critical faction within the Democratic Party. After Trump was elected, there were persistent rumors that the Deep State had become insubordinate and were doing everything possible to keep the war against Russia going. This helps explain why alleged “Russian hacking” is highlighted by such an extent in the mainstream media, and by some (but not all) civil servants and Jewish politicians. It also explains the various invocations of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to remove Trump by anonymous government officials.

The Jews of the Impeachment [10] & the Dispossessed Majority

The flaws enumerated above emphasize just how out of control and disconnected from America the US foreign policy institutions have become. The impeachment effort is led by Jews who are entirely sympathetic to war in Ukraine. This includes Congressmen Adam Schiff, Eliot Engle, and Jerry Nadler. Also supporting the impeachment are Jewish Congresswomen Elissa Slotkin and Elaine Lurian. Ambassador Gordon Sondland and LTC Alexander Vindman[4] [11] are also Jews [12]. There is also an immigrant component here. LTC Vindman was born in Ukraine, as was former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Fiona Hill is English.

There is obviously no ethnic animosity towards Russians or American whites on the part of the Anglo Fiona Hill, but the immigrant angle here is important [13]. It is remarkable that not one, but three officials involved have no deep roots in the United States. Furthermore, one “Marie Yovanovich” as an ambassador means there is one less place for an old-stock American WASP – the State Department’s traditional backbone. This situation follows the same logic as that of employing the Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire: Those with no local connections are more loyal to the imperial elite and don’t care about the burdens of empire upon the core white population, Jewish hostility towards the historic American nation, unemployed whites in the Rust Belt, or the opioid crisis.

What Should American Policy be in Ukraine?

I won’t discuss Fiona Hill’s statements about the Russian “hacking” of the 2016 election in depth because I don’t believe in the conspiracy. The focus on “the Russians” ignores many other nations’ efforts to influence US policies, and we know that the “intelligence community” did lie (or were very, very wrong) about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” – so you can’t really trust them. The only logical reason for American involvement in Ukraine today is Jewish ethnic animus against Russians. Nevertheless, the Deep State has given its official reasons for its Ukrainian policy through its WASP representatives, Acting Ambassador William Taylor [14] and George Kent [15]. These reasons are:

These three assumptions are all flawed. First, Ukraine is not a strategic partner of the United States. The closest analogy to Ukraine’s relationship with the US today is something akin to the relationship America had with South Vietnam prior to 1963; that is to say, American policy was in the hands of a corrupt, dysfunctional ally, and the logic of the situation led to more and more American support for this ally despite the risk that matters could escalate catastrophically.

Second, Ukraine – especially eastern Ukraine and the Crimea – is of vital importance to the Russians, and in the past [16] Russians have spilled oceans of blood to defend these areas over several centuries [17]. Western involvement there is an obvious provocation. This is the opposite of securing peace in Europe.

Finally, the “rules-based international order” based on an assumed understanding of the causes of the Second World War is wrong. War broke out in Europe due to a Ukraine-like situation in Poland. Like Ukraine, Poland became independent as a polity rather than as an ethnostate. Like Ukraine today, Poland was then a new polity with a shaky, unproven ability to govern itself. Like eastern Ukraine’s demographics, western Poland had a population that spoke a different language, followed a different branch of Christianity, and had a longstanding relationship with a more powerful neighboring country.


Poland in 1931. The portions in blue were home to large German populations. Their status is what led to the Second World War.

The British and French handling of the German-Polish border dispute of 1939 led to more than sixty million dead, left most of Europe in ruins, and destroyed both the British and French empires. In 1939, Britannia ruled the wave; by 1945, a malnourished Britannia begged for American handouts. Poland, in whose name the war began, was returned to Russian domination for the next half-century. The moral certainty that the “foreign policy experts” at the impeachment hearings evince reveal an establishment that is both unreasonable and unwise. All Second World War analogies that don’t take into account the British missteps regarding Poland are flawed. That war was not a “good war”; it was a huge catastrophe. It is time to regard international relations as that of managing a complex environment, and a “rules-based order” should be replaced with that of a wisdom-based order.


The 2010 Polish election. Even today, there is a political divide that corresponds to the previous borders of the German Empire.

A Warning to Anti-Russian Ukrainian Nationalists

The impeachment hearing will not endear ordinary Americans to Ukraine. Indeed, the smug arrogance of Ukraine’s officials, the obvious Jewish[5] [20] angle of the impeachment, the obvious nonsense regarding “Russians” hacking the election, and the viciousness of the attacks on President Trump and his supporters by the same will be answered. This might be unfair, but it is very likely that millions of Americans will shift their anger toward Ukraine. Why, an American might ask, did $5 billion get dumped into Ukraine at a time of vast government deficits, a severe recession, and an opiate crisis at home? Why are billions for Ukraine not a problem, but pennies for a border wall are? Perhaps, they will reason, it is better to give no aid to Ukraine at all. Donald Trump lost no votes when he ceased supporting the Kurds in Syria.


A proven way to keep the peace in Europe is to create ethnostates. Schleswig-Holstein was a duchy with a population of Danes and Germans. When united it was a destabilizing element; when divided along ethnic lines, it became a peaceful, undefended border.

It is time for Ukrainians to consider the Schleswig-Holstein solution and partition their polity between Ukrainians and Russians. Throughout the nineteenth century, and especially after 1848, the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein became a place of bitter ethnic strife that spilled over into Germany, Austria, and Denmark. This led to two wars. In 1866, Schleswig-Holstein became part of Prussia and was merged into the German Empire in 1871. After the First World War, a plebiscite was held, and the Danish parts of Schleswig-Holstein (i.e., northern Schleswig) went to Denmark and the German parts went to Germany. Anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists should consider this option. History has shown [22] that while the Americans are a danger to their enemies, they are likewise known to be fatal to their friends.


[1] [23] That is to say, the organized Jewish community in the United States. The organized Jewish community in Russia is likely subverting things in a different way. Putin’s government is not creating a pro-white paradise.

[2] [24] Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), pp. 167, 168

[3] [25] Prior to the Soviet Union, Jews in America were deeply hostile to Russia. They altered American policy to the degree that they were anti-Russian during the Taft administration.

[4] [26] In Vindman’s case, we can see that no white in government can have a true friendship with a Jew. Vindman seems to have gone straight to Trump’s enemies in Congress the instant he didn’t get his way. Additionally, he was offered jobs in the Ukrainian government, so it is immediately obvious that his actions are not in keeping with an America First policy.

[5] [27] One of the impeachment’s biggest supporters is from a Palestinian in Congress named Rashida Tlaib. Her actions prove that the Zionists are correct when they say that the Palestinians always make the wrong choice. Likely because of the impeachment, Trump has changed American policy regarding Israel’s occupation of the West Bank to one of acceptance. This will split the Jewish vote and might have been the price for the Jew Sondland’s contradictory testimony. At any rate, the Democrats won’t change the new West Bank policy when they next win the White House. Furthermore, Tlaib will never have a genuine alliance with the organized Jewish community, but in the past Arabs from the Levant did have a relationship with American Protestants. She has reached out to her mortal enemies and alienated any white that might have been her friend [28]. Additionally, Tlaib’s savage behavior confirms the erroneous, but real, belief in many white minds that Palestinians are savages. Because of Tlaib’s monkey-shines [29], the Christian Zionist heresy has gained another decade or more of life.