How Zelensky Could End the War in Ukraine Now

Ukrainian Premier Zelensky is threatening World War III if his non-negotiable conditions for a settlement in Ukraine's ongoing war with Russia are not met.

So what are his conditions?

That Kyiv should rule over a culturally unified Ukraine. 

That means the suppression of the Russian language and culture of Eastern Ukraine, whatever the people there want. 

Specifically, it means enforcement of existing legislation denying Russian-language Government services, including education, throughout Russian-speaking Ukraine. 

That's a policy that Canada calls Cultural Genocide. It's what Zelensky's besty, Justin Trudeau, tearfully apologized for when addressing Canada's residential school system, a system designed to take the Indian out of the Indian and adapt him to Euro-Canadian life. 

But if Zelensky's Western Ukraine-dominated government is denied the right to take the Russian out of the Russians in Ukraine -- the people former Ukrainian Premier Julia Tymoshenko wanted to exterminate -- then Zelensky intends to bring down the entire world.

Thanks Zel, but no thanks. Here's a better idea: an oblast by oblast referendum on how Ukrainians wish to be governed. Here are the options:

A government of: 

A bilingual (Ukrainian/Russian) Ukraine;

A Ukrainian-speaking Ukraine;

A Ukrainian-speaking Western Ukraine;

A Russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine;

A neighboring state -- Russia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, or Romania.

Whatever the outcome, such a referendum would end Ukraine's borderland status. The whole would either be ruled by a single government to which the majority of Ukrainians, in all regions, whatever their cultural heritage, bore allegiance, or the country would be divided between two or more states, each having the allegiance of the majority of its citizens. 

This, the most humane and reasonable solution, clearly would not suit the megalomaniacal Zelensky. But there is no reason why the world should back the head of the genocidal regime currently holding power in Kyiv. 

Related:

Zelenskyy Suspends All 11 Opposition Parties Becoming Head Of A One-Party State They were suspended for being pro-Russian. That is, they represented those six million East Ukrainian Russians that the Jewish former Ukrainian Prime Minister, Julia Tymoshenko wanted to genocide just as do the Ukie Nazis of the Azov Battalion who are using civilians (that is Russian Ukrainians)as hostages in the battle for Mariupol. Such facts are, for obvious reasons, never mentioned in the MSM love-fest for Justin Trudeau's friend and admirer, Zelensky, who threatens World War III if his will in Ukraine does not prevail.

Head of Ukraine military med service says the order was given to castrate Russian POWs because they are cockroaches Ukraine's war on Donbas Russians is not genocidal — Not.

Correlation Between Vaccination Status and Susceptibility to the MSM Narrative on Ukraine That figures

UK Covid death figures all bunk But the vaxxed believed them just as they believe St Walensky's account of the origins of the Ukraine war.

What most people believe and why you needn't feel stupid for not believing it

White Self Genocide: If You're White, Your Government Has Painted a Target on Your Back

Paul Craig Roberts, former US Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, explains how the US is ruled and how the Western nations are intent on racial and cultural self-destruction:

How Britain's PC Defenders of Islamic Clit-Clippers Pounded on "Racist" John Cleese for Regretting the Cultural Genocide of His Own People

Speaking of the place of his nativity, London, England,  John Cleese recently remarked:

London is not really an English city any more

This generated the predictable storm of anti-British hate-speech from Britain's ruling Treason class.

Opposing destruction of your own nation's culture to accommodate millions of settler immigrants is vilest racism according to Britain's dictators of political correctness and their mouthpieces at the BBC, the Independent, the Gruniard, etc., etc.

Uncowed, Cleese responded to the condemnation by, in effect, calling the cultural transformation of London, England's greatest city, cultural genocide:

I think it's legitimate to prefer one culture to another For example, I prefer cultures that do not tolerate female genital mutilation. This will be considered racist by all those who hover, eagerly hoping that someone will offend them - on someone else's behalf, naturally.

And Cleese spoke only about culture.

That London has been ethnically cleansed of the majority of its English inhabitants is perhaps too hot a topic even for John Cleese to mention. It would be like Jews in Nazi Germany objecting to the Holocaust. No, today, in Britain, opposing the genocide of your own people is not only horribly racist, it is probably illegal too. 

Why Western Elites Are Destroying Their Own People By Mass Immigration and Multiculturalism

The Saker has an article over at the Unz Review in which he argues that the ongoing racial and cultural genocide of the European peoples by mass immigration and multiculturalism is unstoppable, first, because of the decadence of the European people, and second, because of the malign manipulation of the Anglo-Zionist money power. 

This is a plausible but entirely mistaken analysis of what is happening to the European people both in Europe and in North America.

The elite are destroying their own people because the have no respect for them, or sense of kinship with them, and because it pays. This goes back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, when an urban proletariat, with no family connection to the landowning and capitalist class that dominated Parliament,* rapidly expanded and became a perpetual threat to the security of the state. Hence Disraeli’s recognition of the existence of “Two Nations” between whom, as a character in his novel "Sybil" (1945) remarked:

there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor.

The Great Chartist Meeting on Kennington Common, London in 1848
by William Edward Kilburn. Chartism was a movement for workers rights
and political representation.

In Disraeli’s time, free trade with input factor mobility, i.e., the import of cheap labor, or the export of capital and technology to cheap-labor areas whence products could be imported to the home market, was rarely if ever an option for the owners of capital, which meant that the industrial proletariat, though considered by the elite to be both dangerous and disgusting, had to be tolerated.

But input factor mobility is not only possible today, but the underlying reason for globalization. Thus there is a massive flow of cheap Third-World labor to the high-wage West, a flow of products of sweat-shop labor in the same direction, and a flow of capital and technology in the opposite direction, all of which negatively impacts wages in the West. Multiculturalism is the inevitable, and from the elite point of view, desirable consequence of the Third-World migrant flow. Desirable, that is, because a culturally divided proletariat is much less of a threat to the elite than a united nation.

But the Saker is right about two things. First that mass migration means the complete cultural and racial extinction of the European peoples. Second, that mass immigration will continue inexorable for the foreseeable future, the reason being that, for every worker in, say, England (pop. 53 million), there will certainly be many better qualified people (higher IQ, more energy, more ambition, little if any commitment to workers’ rights, etc.) in the Third World (pop. 5 billion plus), who are paid a fraction of what an English worker is paid. And among these potential migrants,  rickshaw drivers earning a dollar or two a day, for example, there will always be some ready, if they are permitted, to migrate to London to earn twenty or thirty dollars an hour driving a bus? And naturally, the elite welcomes such people. If the newcomers hassle the local girls, squeeze the natives out of decent housing, build mosques, etc., so what? What can the natives do about it? Nothing, as it now is clear. And if it means ever rising taxes to pay for new maternity hospitals, roads, schools, etc., that's very satisfactory: it keeps the construction industry prosperous and it allows a growing bureaucracy to soak up the educated middle class who might otherwise begin to think seriously about what is going on. And if the net result is that the native working class becomes an underclass — i.e., white trash despised by all and sundry, again, so what? There’s not a damn thing they can do about it: the supposedly left-wing workers parties being funded by the same plutocratic donors as the so-called conservative parties.

As for the Saker's assertion that the genocide of the Western nations is an Anglo-Zionist Money Power plot, that is just thoughtless conspiracy theory. One might as absurdly impute the Rothschild's or the Illuminati. Many members of the elite are Jews, for sure, but many are Anglos, and many more are Asians, Middle-Easterners or Africans. The issue is that genocide by immigration and multiculturalism pays. The ethnicity of the genocidal elite is irrelevant.

———
* An understanding of the change in relationship between the landowning classes in Britain, i.e., the elite, and the common folk that occurred with the industrial revolution was provided by Adam Smith in his treatise on economics. There he explained that, before the industrial revolution, there was close kinship between the upper and lower classes due to differential mortality between the rich and the poor. Overall, the population remained relatively constant, but because of high child mortality, the poor failed to fully reproduce themselves and the resulting population deficit was made up by the excess fertility of the rich. Thus, the rich were permanently downward mobile with two results. First, most of the rich had poor relatives for whom they had a personal sympathy, second the poor, many not so long descended from the rich, tended to adhere to the conservative values of their better off relatives. These factors made for a united nation. This unity fractured with the rise of the urban working class, which though living in seeming squalor and bestial ignorance, achieved well above replacement reproductive rates and which, as it swelled in number, adopted socialistic ideas. Thus, in purely hereditary terms, the industrial proletariat became much more distant from the elites than had been the rural poor of the pre-industrial era. In addition the political ambitions of the proletariat came to threaten the security of the elite, as they do to this day.

Related: 

CanSpeccy: The Ongoing Destruction of the European Nations Is No Mistake