General

Will Putin Submit to US-Imposed ‘Weakening’?

/7 Comments/in /by
Will Putin Submit to US-Imposed 'Weakening'? By Patrick Buchanan

Nothing done in Ukraine in this two-month war has diminished the Russian arsenal of 6,000 nuclear weapons, the world’s largest stockpile. And the more we destroy Russian conventional power, the more we force Moscow to fall back onto its ace in the hole — nuclear weapons.

“Once war is forced upon us, there is no alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very object is victory — not prolonged indecision.”

So said Gen. Douglas MacArthur in his April 1951 address to Congress after being fired by President Harry Truman as commander in chief in the Korean War.

And what is now America’s goal with our massive infusion into the Ukraine war of new and heavier NATO weapons?

Said Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on his return from a Sunday meeting in Kyiv with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy: The United States wants “to see Russia weakened to the point where it can’t do things like invade Ukraine.”

“Russia,” said Austin, has “already lost a lot of military capability and a lot of its troops … and we want to see them not have the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability.”

Thus, the new, or newly revealed, goal of U.S. policy in Ukraine is not just the defeat and retreat of the invading Russian army but the crippling of Russia as a world power.

The sanctions imposed on Russia and the advanced weapons we are shipping into Ukraine are not only to enable the country to preserve its independence and territorial integrity but also to inflict irreversible damage on Mother Russia.

Putin’s Russia is not to recover soon or ever from the beating we intend to administer, using Ukrainians to deliver the beating, over an extended period of time.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has seen through to the true objectives of some NATO allies: “There are countries within NATO that want the Ukraine war to continue. They see the continuation of the war as weakening Russia. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine.”

But to increase steadily and substantially the losses to Russia’s economy, as well as its military, the war must go on longer.

And a long war translates into ever-greater losses to the Ukrainians who are alone in paying the price in blood of defeating Russia.

Is Austin committed to fighting this war to the last Ukrainian?

How many dead Russian soldiers — currently, the estimate of Russian losses is 15,000 of its invasion force — will it take to satisfy Austin and the Americans?

To achieve, say, a loss of 50,000 dead Russians, how many Ukrainians would have to lose their lives as well? How many Ukrainian cities would have to share the fate of Mariupol?

Clearly, the Joe Biden-Lloyd strategy of indefinitely bleeding Russia contradicts MacArthur’s dictum: “War’s very object is victory — not prolonged indecision.”

Does a war to bleed the other side to death also contradict the moral conditions for a just war?

Then there are the practical considerations.

When we say we will so weaken Russia that it cannot threaten its neighbors again, we are talking about conventional weapons and power.

Nothing done in Ukraine in this two-month war has diminished the Russian arsenal of 6,000 nuclear weapons, the world’s largest stockpile.

And the more we destroy Russian conventional power, the more we force Moscow to fall back onto its ace in the hole — nuclear weapons.

Asked Tuesday about the risk of a nuclear war emanating from the conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov replied.

“The risks now are considerable. I would not want to elevate those risks artificially. Many would like that. The danger is serious, real. And we must not underestimate it.”

Putin put it this way: “If anyone sets out to intervene in the current events from the outside and creates unacceptable threats for us that are strategic in nature, they should know that our response will be lightning-fast … “We have all the tools for this that no one else can boast of having. … We’ll use them if needed. And I want everyone to know that.”

Tactical nuclear warheads aboard hypersonic missiles would seem to fit precisely what Putin was describing.

Which raises the question: Will Putin accept a U.S.-induced permanent reduction in Russia’s standing as a great nation? Or would Russia resort to weapons that could avoid that fate and avoid as well the long and debilitating “forever war” some Americans want to impose on his country?

If we are going to bleed Russia into an irreversible strategic decline, is Putin a ruler of the mindset to go quietly into that good night?

Are Putin & Co. bluffing with this implied nuclear threat?

When Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008, Putin’s Russian army reacted instantly, ran the Georgians out and stormed into Georgia itself.

When the U.S. helped to overthrow the pro-Russian government in Kyiv in 2014, Russia plunged in and took Crimea, the Sevastopol naval base, and Luhansk and Donetsk.

When Ukraine flirted with joining NATO and Biden refused to rule out the possibility, Putin invaded in February.

When he warns of military action, Putin has some credibility.

And in this talk of using tactical atomic weapons to prevent the defeat, humiliation and diminution of Russia itself, is Vladimir Putin bluffing?

Liberal Doomsday Scenario: Free Speech on Twitter

/9 Comments/in /by
LIBERAL DOOMSDAY SCENARIO: FREE SPEECH ON TWITTER

I want to send flowers and chocolates to the Twitter employee who permanently suspended The Babylon Bee. Maybe a car. Apparently, it was the inanity of that decision that incensed Elon Musk, whereupon he decided to purchase the entire platform to stop the censorship.

Liberals, until five minutes ago: Elon Musk is a climate hero! Electric cars! Solar power! He loves Obama!

Liberals, five minutes ago: He believes in free speech? Fascist!

Loads of liberals are threatening to leave Twitter if Musk’s deal goes through. To those who will miss The New York Times’ Charles Blow, I understand. I will try to ease the pain by tweeting, every day for the rest of my life: “[FILL IN THE BLANK] is racist!”

If you’re wondering why liberals are freaking out over the idea of free speech on one single internet platform, it’s because their ideas are so well thought-out and compellingly argued that they must have total control of all social media, mainstream media, entertainment, elementary schools, colleges, universities, nonprofits, corporate PR departments, government funding agencies, advertising firms and on and on and on. Any interruption to Big Brother being pumped into our brains 24 hours a day, and everything falls apart.

A hysterical Twitter employee in the “toxicity and health” department (I’m not making that up) denounced Musk to a Times reporter, saying, “he doesn’t know anything about our policies and what we do … his statement about our [algorithm] was f***ing insane. … Were (sic) just gonna let everyone run amok?”

Running “amok” is defined as: calling a man in a dress a “man.” That’s the Babylon Bee tweet that led to a Twitter death sentence, with no trial, no due process, no appeal.

Twitter employees, the Times reports, are “worried that Mr. Musk would undo the years of work they have put into cleaning up the toxic corners of the platform.” (Yes, you are correct: These are the same people mocking 4-year-olds trapped in kindergarten classrooms with teachers telling them Whiteness is evil and they can be any gender they want.)

Do Twitter employees know how Twitter works? Take a theoretical hate-speaker — a fat-shaming Klanner, an anti-vax Nazi or Dave Chappelle. Their literally murderous tweets are invisible — unless you intentionally, willfully, mindfully click their “follow” buttons. In order to avoid seeing “toxic” tweets, this is what you have to do: NOTHING!

But Twitter moderators are terrified that someone, somewhere, is laughing at a tweet. They are the mutant baby of medieval scolds and the East German Stasi.

Conservatives can only dream of a Twitter without constant, daily self-censorship, without their followers being secretly removed, their feeds hidden, their accounts being shadow-banned — or completely banned.

But what if this is all just Musk doing an elaborate troll?

Somebody should buy Twitter, as I explained last November to the richest person I know under 70. (The richest people I know over the age of 70 are giving all their money to Sen. Tim Scott and Candace Owens to prove they’re not “racist.”)

Here it is, my personal private email, names redacted:

Date: Nov. 30, 2021, at 2:04:51 a.m. EST

Subject: You should buy Twitter and I’ll tell you why …

ALL news comes from Twitter. Facebook is for getting in touch with high school friends and the “topic” groups are mostly nuts — anti-vax, stop the steal, black conspiracy theories. Same w/the newer platforms like Telegram. Snapchat and Instagram are for “influencers,” wannabe Kardashians.

Twitter is where the NYT, Politico and Fox News etc. get their stories and find their guests. Have one of your ppl read my Twitter feed and then watch XXXXX for a week. I’m his unpaid booker and content provider, except, sadly, when I get lazy and he goes off on his own with some moronic “expose” …

No one under 60 watches cable news, but YYYY, who’s about 90, calls me after XXXXX’s show every night and breathlessly tells me about stories that are 12 to 36 hours old on Twitter, half the time from my Twitter feed.

Even w/Twitter’s censorship of conservatives, the smartest right-wing pushback on the news has all come from Twitter. E.g. this week, HUGE meme on Twitter about the establishment media describing the BLM terrorist mowing down the lovely xmas parade in Waukesha as a “car crash,” or “SUV runs into parade.” There was also the msm’s decision to describe every rt-wing response to lib lunacy as “Republicans Pounce …”

There are a lot of smart ppl on Twitter (also idiots, but no one has to follow the idiots) who could never be employed by the NYT, National Review or Fox. Andy Ngo exposing antifa, the anti-CRT guy posting school teaching materials, the guy who keeps graphing mask-wearing vs. covid cases (“I.M.” on Twitter), the real-time videos of BLM riots and arson — none of this would exist but for Twitter.

Before that, the defense of Rittenhouse, Jake Gardner and Nick Sandmann — it all came from Twitter. (Recall National Review was nastily ANTI-Sandmann and anti-Rittenhouse.)

We used to have Drudge, but he’s not serving the function of vox populi anymore. Without Twitter, the only thing Fox News would talk about is the Middle East [We may now substitute “Ukraine”]. All important news comes from Twitter.

Twitter is …

1) where the action is, massively influential;

2) perfect for someone else to take it over and make it better, merely by firing the Twitter censors — Twitter aggressively banned tweets that were pro-Rittenhouse (accurate as it turned out), about Hunter Biden (ditto); plus there’s the aggressive censorship of specific popular conservatives, who are either thrown off (e.g. Gavin McInnes and Milo) or shadow-banned (me and others);

3) it would be pretty easy to turn into a money-making operation! The big issue for all news — TV, cable, Amazon Prime, and all online content is how to get ADVERTISING in front of consumers. No one wants to click through ads. The great thing about Twitter is that you could insert ads in people’s Twitter feeds — and it wouldn’t be annoying. I’ve never understood why Dorsey doesn’t do that. It doesn’t distract much, you just keep scrolling if you’re not interested.

Twitter is a fabulous product. It is, as Musk says, the nation’s public square. With a few minor tweaks — stop being Nazi block-watchers and allow ads in people’s Twitter feeds — instead of Tesla funding Twitter, someday Twitter could fund Tesla.

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER

The French Center Holds — In a World Coming Apart

/17 Comments/in /by
The French Center Holds -- In a World Coming Apart By Patrick Buchanan

 

So terrified of Le Pen was the European establishment that before Sunday’s election, the leaders of Spain, Portugal and Germany intervened in France’s politics by imploring the French people to vote against her.

“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.”

So wrote William Butler Yeats in the wake of the Great War of 1914–1918 that had ravaged the Christian civilization he had known.

In France on Sunday, the center held, as President Emmanuel Macron rolled up a crushing 59% to 41% victory in the runoff election against ethno-nationalist Marine Le Pen.

Four years ago, Le Pen got 34% in the runoff. And the highest vote that her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of the National Front, ever received was 18%. While Marine Le Pen lost Sunday, her positions continue to attract converts.

So terrified of Le Pen was the European establishment that before Sunday’s election, the leaders of Spain, Portugal and Germany intervened in France’s politics by imploring the French people to vote against her.

This runoff is “for us, not an election like any other,” wrote German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Costa and Spanish Premier Pedro Sanchez in Le Monde.

France faces a “choice between a democratic candidate … and a far-right candidate, who openly sides with those who attack our freedom and our democracy.”

More than 4 in 10 French voted for the candidate the EU leaders had described as anti-democratic.

In the first round of voting, Le Pen, along with rabid leftist Jean-Luc Melenchon and the hard right’s Eric Zemmour, who ran third and fourth, behind Le Pen, together carried 52%.

Thus did three of the top four candidates for the presidency of France, and a majority of the French nation, show support for an idea that all three of them shared — hostility to NATO.

In ruling France for the next five years, Macron, himself a critic of U.S. leadership and NATO, will have to keep this constituency in mind.

And Macron knows it. On his night of triumph, he conceded that many of those who voted for him were motivated not by an appreciation of what he had accomplished, but by a fear of Le Pen.

In the East of Europe, however, change may be on the horizon.

Major media — Newsweek, the New York Post and Daily Mail — are reporting rumors, based partly on recent videos of Russia’s president, that Vladimir Putin may be suffering from cancer.

Also, news that Sweden and Finland may be joining NATO as the 31st and 32nd members of the alliance has caused a sharp reaction from Moscow, which is warning of a redeployment of nuclear weapons to the Baltic.

Again, have people thought through what it would mean to bring Finland, a nation the size of Germany with an 830-mile land border with Russia, into NATO?

With 4% of Russia’s population, Finland would need NATO ground troops to man the border bases and crossing points into that country, and some of those troops would likely have to be Americans.

They would be staring across that chilly border directly at Russians, as in East and West Berlin in Cold War days.

Last Friday, in a press conference, Gen. Rustam Minnekayev said Russia seeks full control of all of southern Ukraine to give it “another way out to Transnistria” — the breakaway state internationally recognized as part of Moldova.

Minnekayev charged Moldova with oppressing the Russian-speaking population of Transnistria, an echo of the claim the Kremlin used to justify the invasion of Ukraine.

Was this weekend’s missile attack on Odessa an indicator of that Russian intent?

Putin’s ally in Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, in his sixth term, having held the top office for three decades, is now 68, and his last election victory in 2020 was almost universally regarded as fraudulent.

Would Moscow, having lost Ukraine, sit still as Sweden and Finland moved onto the threshold of NATO and accept a neutrality for Belarus that would leave Russia without two of the three critical components of his Russian Federation as allies?

China’s largest city, Shanghai, is today in a lockdown ordered by Xi Jinping, as China suddenly seems no longer the country that showed the world how to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic that began in Wuhan.

President Joe Biden may be making trips to New Hampshire, but few believe he will be running again in 2024, as the manifestations of his cognitive decline appear more frequent and disturbing.

Yet, one recalls.

Woodrow Wilson suffered an incapacitating stroke during a national tour to sell the peace treaty and League of Nations he had negotiated at Paris to the country and the Senate in 1919, yet survived his successor Warren Harding, who died in office in 1923.

As Macron was rolling up his election victory, Ron Klain, Biden’s White House chief of staff, chortled at the outcome.

“An interesting observation, just FYI,” tweeted Klain. “President Macron appears to have secured a double-digit victory over LePen, at a time when his approval rating is 36%. Hmmm … ”

If Macron can pull it off, why can’t Biden, Klain is contending here.

Unconvincingly.

 

First Priority — Avoid US War With Russia

/6 Comments/in /by
First Priority -- Avoid US War With Russia By Patrick Buchanan

Neocons and war hawks are taking the position that the visible defeat of the Russian army and its expulsion from Ukraine, and Putin’s humiliation and ouster, must be America’s goals. And these goals should be nonnegotiable.

Asked if the U.S. should send troops to fight beside the Ukrainians, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Sunday the time may have come.

Russian President Vladimir Putin “will only stop when we stop him,” said Coons.

“We are in a very dangerous moment where it is important that … we in Congress and the administration come to a common position about when we are willing to go the next step and to send not just arms but troops to the aid in defense of Ukraine.”

“If the answer is never, then we are inviting another level of escalation in brutality by Putin.”

In response, the White House affirmed President Joe Biden’s declaration that U.S. troops are not going to be sent to fight Russians in Ukraine, as this would open the door to World War III.

Said Biden last month: “The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews, just understand … that’s called World War III, OK? Let’s get it straight here, guys.”

Biden added, “We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”

Since Biden made these remarks, however, the red line against direct U.S. aid to the Ukrainian military has shifted, though the prohibition against the introduction of U.S. troops and air power has remained.

The present U.S. position might be summarized thus:

As U.S. forces fighting and killing Russians in Ukraine would ignite a U.S.-Russia war, which could escalate to nuclear war, we are not going to take that first step and risk the security and survival of our country, even if our staying out of this two-month war means the defeat of Ukraine.

Call it the Eisenhower position.

In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower refused to use U.S. forces to intervene to halt Russian tanks from crushing the Hungarian Revolution that had risen up against Soviet occupation and rule.

Ike was unwilling to cross the Yalta line dividing Europe and chose to let the Hungarian Revolution fail rather than potentially ignite a war in which our own soldiers and nation would be at risk.

Ike literally put America first, ahead of the Hungarians.

Where does Biden’s refusal to follow Coon’s urgings leave the rival belligerents in this Ukraine-Russia war?

Putin has suffered a series of setbacks since his invasion began.

He has failed to capture any of the three largest cities in Ukraine: Kyiv, the capital, or Kharkiv, the second largest city, or Odessa, the third largest city and principal port on the Black Sea.

Putin suffered a humiliating defeat and retreat in the battle of Kyiv and has lost a fourth of the forces with which he started the war.

The flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, the cruiser Moskva, has been sunk, reportedly by Ukrainian anti-ship missiles.

Yet Putin has had his successes as well.

If Mariupol, Ukraine’s major port on the Sea of Azov falls, as is expected, Putin will have his “land bridge” from Russia to Crimea. North of Crimea and in the west of Luhansk and Donetsk, Putin has also added to the lands he has held since 2014.

Russia’s capture and annexation of the Donbas could be called a victory by Putin. Capture of Kharkiv or Odessa, the latter of which would give Putin control of the entire Black Sea coast of Ukraine, making Kyiv the capital of a land-locked country, would constitute a triumph.

Which brings us to the debate now shaping up in the USA.

Neocons and war hawks are taking the position that the visible defeat of the Russian army and its expulsion from Ukraine, and Putin’s humiliation and ouster, must be America’s goals. And these goals should be nonnegotiable. Failure to achieve these ends, it is said, would amount to a defeat for NATO and the United States.

The problem with this victory scenario?

Putin has sent many signals that before he accepts the defeat of his army and country and his own removal and trial as a “war criminal” who engaged in “genocide,” he will use battlefield nuclear weapons from his arsenal of 6,000 such weapons to win the war.

Wednesday Putin announced Russia’s test of a giant new intercontinental ballistic missile.

Dissenters believe that Putin may not be bluffing, that an early and negotiated end to this war may be necessary to avoid a wider conflict that could escalate into World War III.

But, as ever, they are being charged with timidity and cowardice and letting pass a historic opportunity to administer to authoritarian Russia the defeat it invited with this invasion and that it richly deserves.

Yet, recall: To avoid war with Russia, President Harry Truman refused to breach Joseph Stalin’s Berlin Blockade. Eisenhower let the Hungarian revolution be drowned in blood and told the Brits, French and Israelis to get out of Egypt. President John F. Kennedy let the Berlin Wall go up. President Lyndon B. Johnson let the Prague Spring be crushed by the Warsaw Pact.

The sooner this war ends, the better for all.

The Pandemic Made Me Do It!

/6 Comments/in /by

The Pandemic Made Me Do It!

With the mind-boggling rise in violent crime since the Democrats turned all policing policies over to BLM, the media have become obsessed with convincing us that it’s all the fault of the pandemic. (At least they’re not blaming it on Putin this time.)

In its coverage of the subway shooting by a rage-filled black nationalist last week, The New York Times inserted its pandemic theory of crime into nearly every update (emphasis added):

— “Shootings in New York City rose during 2022’s first quarter compared with the same period last year … the continuation of a drumbeat of violence that emerged early in the PANDEMIC, and has not ebbed with the virus.”

— “This year’s first three months have also seen rises in crimes like burglaries, robberies and grand larcenies compared to the same periods in 2020 and 2021, though experts warn against short-term comparisons, particularly during the statistic-skewing PANDEMIC.”

— “Mr. Lee said reports of attacks across the city, along with the violence that other Asian Americans in the city have experienced throughout the coronavirus PANDEMIC, have left him fearful.”

(I’d like to know if Mr. Lee cited the pandemic or — my guess — the Times helpfully threw that in.)

— “The city’s police commissioner announced new figures last week that showed a 36% increase in major crimes and a 16% rise in shootings over the past year — part of a rise in violence during the PANDEMIC.”

No evidence is ever cited. The Times made no attempt to tie Frank James’ personal pandemic experience to his outburst of homicidal racism. “The pandemic caused the crime wave” is just repeated in article after article, like the sleep conditioning of infants in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.”

Except even in Huxley’s dystopian world, the bureaucrats only needed to repeat an idea three times a week. The media authoritatively announce that the pandemic caused the crime wave about a thousand times a week.

A spate of shootings over the weekend led to another gusher of “The pandemic causes crime” sightings in the Times. Now it’s not just crime generally, but specifically mass shootings: “Experts are pointing to multiple possible factors that could explain the upswing [in mass shootings], including the pandemic …”

I wonder if that includes any of the experts who spent the first 2.5 months of the pandemic telling us that the lockdowns had had the wonderful effect of virtually ending violent crime! That is, right up until the day George Floyd was killed, whereupon White people became guilty for everything, and Black people responsible for nothing, including their own criminal behavior.

Thus, on April 14, 2020, a month into “15 days to slow the spread,” the Times stated matter-of-factly: “Violent crime has dropped precipitously.” Two weeks later, on May 4, 2020, Politico reported: “Major crime has plunged during New York City’s coronavirus lockdown, down 28.5% in the month of April.”

Similarly, on April 23, 2020, The Denver Post reported that during the first four weeks of the pandemic, crime reports were down by a third, adding that “other large cities have seen significant drops in crime during the coronavirus.”

The very day that Floyd died, Voice of America announced that major U.S. cities had “reported dips in burglary, assault, murder, robbery and grand larceny — all due to stay-at-home orders and fewer opportunities for crime.”

How about a bigger comparison? Are there any studies of crime during the pandemic from around the globe? Why yes, there are!  A study by Cambridge University of crime rates in 27 cities across 23 countries in Europe, the Americas, Asia and the Middle East found that stay-at-home orders during the pandemic “were associated with a considerable drop in urban crime.”

Then, in a crazy coincidence invisible to every member of our media, on May 25, 2020, an innocent Black man, just minding his own business, bothering no one, was killed by a cop in Minneapolis, and …

BAM! As you may have seen in Twitter and YouTube videos (at least the ones that were not immediately removed by “moderators”), violent crime promptly exploded in cities across the nation.

Both the FBI and CDC report that murders were up 30% in 2020 — the largest year-to-year increase in more than a century. The next biggest increase was back in 1968, when it went up by 12.7%. In 2021, murders were up again, 44% compared to 2019.

And it all started on the mystery date of May 25, 2020. From Jan. 1, 2020, to May 25, 2020, gun homicides increased by 14%, compared to 2019. (Democrats do control the cities.) But from George Floyd’s death on May 25, 2020, through the end of the year, gun homicides shot up an astronomical 41%.

Obviously, therefore, one problem with the theory that the bacchanal of violence of the last two years is the pandemic’s fault is that there is absolutely no evidence to support it.

As we’ve seen, right up until the hysteria over Floyd’s death, the media were fairly bristling with stories about the salubrious effect the pandemic was having on crime. In addition, as a factual matter, gun homicides nearly tripled from the period before Floyd’s death (B.F.) compared to the period after his death (A.D.)

A second major problem with the pandemic theory of crime is that it requires a complete mind-wipe of everything that happened in the months after Floyd’s death: BLM. All Cops Are Bastards. Defund the Police.

Media in unison: We have no idea what you’re talking about. 

Here’s a reminder:

— Associated Press, May 29, 2020: “Minneapolis police station torched amid George Floyd protest”

— New York Times, June 12, 2020: “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police.”

— 770 KTTH, Aug. 25, 2020: “Rioters tried to burn Seattle police alive, sealed door during fire at East Precinct”

— In These Times, Dec. 15, 2020: “The Best Moment of 2020: The Burning of the Third Precinct”

Throughout all this, Democrats and the media celebrated as police budgets were slashed, officers’ hands were tied, and crime after crime was decriminalized.

No wonder they want to blame the pandemic.

Still, there are less obviously false excuses for the current crime wave than the pandemic. (I’m assuming the truth is a non-starter for our media.)

You know what else happened in 2020? The Pentagon released photos of UFOs! How about replacing “the pandemic” with that? The media should start including clauses like this in their crime stories: “… a drumbeat of violence that emerged after the Pentagon released UFO videos” and “… part of a rise in violence the year UFO videos were released.”

Seriously — that’s less unhinged than blaming the current, epic crime wave on “the pandemic.”

     COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER

Should We Commit to Fight Russia — for Finland?

/12 Comments/in /by

Why would we voluntarily agree to give Sweden and Finland these war guarantees? Why would we commit to go to war with Putin’s Russia, a war that could, and likely would, escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, especially if Russia were losing?

The prime ministers of Sweden and Finland, Magdalena Andersson and Sanna Marin, both signaled Wednesday that they will likely be applying for membership in NATO.

The “prospect” is most “welcome,” says The Washington Post: “Finland and Sweden Should Join NATO.”

The editorial was titled “A Way to Punish Putin.”

Before joining the rejoicing in NATO capitals, we might inspect what NATO membership for these two Nordic nations would mean for the United States.

Finland is a nation the size of Germany, but with a population only 4% of that of Russia and a border with Russia that is 830 miles long.

Should Finland join NATO, the United States, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, would be obligated to go to war with the world’s largest nuclear power to retrieve Finnish lands that an enraged Russia might grab.

Moscow has already indicated that, should Sweden and Finland join NATO, Russia will introduce new nuclear weapons into the Baltic region.

Why is it wise for us to formally agree, in perpetuity, as NATO is a permanent alliance, to go to war with Russia, for Finland?

Given the war in Ukraine and concomitant crisis in Eastern Europe, it is understandable why Stockholm and Helsinki would seek greater security beneath the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

But why would we voluntarily agree to give Sweden and Finland these war guarantees? Why would we commit to go to war with Putin’s Russia, a war that could, and likely would, escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, especially if Russia were losing?

Finland was neutral during the Cold War. Sweden has been neutral since the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th century.

How did we suffer from their neutrality?

In Helsinki and Stockholm, the benefit of a U.S.-NATO commitment to go to war for Finland or Sweden is understandable.

But how does it benefit our country, the USA, to be obligated to go to war with a nation that commands the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons — over some quarrel in the Baltic Sea or Gulf of Finland that does not affect us?

Asked for his view on Sweden and Finland’s campaign to join NATO, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had a note of warning:

“We have repeatedly said that the (NATO) alliance remains a tool geared towards confrontation and its further expansion will not bring stability to the European continent.”

Should Putin’s Russia clash with Finland or Sweden today, the U.S. is free to respond, or not to respond, as it sees fit, depending on our own assessment of risks and rewards.

Why not keep it that way? Why surrender our freedom of action in some future collision involving our main adversary?

History holds lessons for us here.

In March 1939, six months after Munich, when Czechoslovakia disintegrated into its ethnic components, Britain issued an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland, then negotiating with Germany over the port city of Danzig taken from Germany by the victorious Allies after World War I.

When Germany, on Sept. 1, 1939, invaded Poland, Britain was obligated to declare war on Germany over a matter that was not a vital interest of Great Britain or its worldwide empire.

Lest we forget, it was the Bucharest Declaration of 2008, opening the door to membership in NATO for Ukraine and Georgia, that led to the recent crises in Eastern Europe and the current war.

The Russia-Georgia War of August 2008, the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, and Putin’s annexation of Crimea and claiming of Luhansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine all proceeded from NATO’s decision in 2008 to open the door to membership for Georgia and Ukraine.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine today is partly due to the U.S. and Ukraine’s refusal to rule out NATO membership for Kyiv.

No NATO nation today has a border with Russia nearly as long as that of Finland. If Finland joins NATO, will we put U.S. boots on the ground along that 830-mile border with Russia? Will U.S. warplanes fly in and out of Finnish airfields and air bases up to the border of Russia?

Collective security is said to be a good idea.

But the core of NATO security is provided by U.S. war guarantees, while most of the collecting is done by our 29 NATO allies, which could become 31 by summer’s end.

Otto von Bismarck predicted that the Great War, when it came, would be ignited by “some damn fool thing in the Balkans.”

And World War I was indeed triggered by the assassination of the Austrian archduke in Sarajevo in June 1914. The Germans came in in part because the kaiser had given Austria a “blank check” for war.

What enabled America to stay out of both world wars for years after they began was our freedom from “entangling alliances” when they began.

But today we not only lead an alliance of 30 nations, but we are adding two more members, one of which has a border of 830 miles with Russia.

How long does our luck last?