a fan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 11:37 pm
Obama may have been wise enough to do nothing, sit back , and watch Putin deal with sanctions, and a POS Ukraine economy, drowning him in problems. Great way to live out your golden years.
What ? How did a POS Ukrainian economy drown Putin in problems ?
It hasn't. He hasn't invaded yet. If he does? Now he's in charge of two economies that suck, not one.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 12:28 am
It was wise for Obama to do nothing,
That's what I said at the time. You disagreed. The 80's called, it wants its foreign policy back. Remember that one?
What ? Think back & remember -- I was accused of being a Russian agent because I said THE Ukraine was a key part of the formative Russian nation-state & should never have become a separate country. I said the same about Belarus, Georgia, & the Baltic states.
You're conflating me with my fellow posters...and switching the Trump era with Obama's era.
I'm talking about you and I interacting during Obama era....
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 12:28 am
The "80's called" line was Obama mocking Romney for saying that Russia still constituted our primary military threat.
he New Axis of Autocracy
Germany and France are weak links as the West faces an alliance of China and Russia. by William A. Galston, Feb. 8, 2022
The Feb. 4 meeting in Beijing between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping makes it official: The U.S. and its allies now face an axis of autocracy stretching from the Baltic to the Pacific.
What Russia and China have in common now is more important than what has divided them in the past. They reject the postwar economic and political order that the U.S. and its allies created. They are revanchist powers determined to regain territories they believe were separated unjustly from their homelands. They endured extended periods of national humiliation, which they are replacing with assertive national pride. And they see democracy as a threat, both inside and outside their borders.
China and Russia have made their choice, and the West must now respond, starting with the U.S.
President Biden is off to a good start. In the Asia-Pacific region, administration officials have shored up traditional alliances and are creating new ones. The strengthened Quad security arrangement involving Japan, India, the U.S. and Australia, coupled with the Aukus agreement to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, will enhance the West’s ability to resist Chinese aggression against Taiwan, Japan and other allies in the region. And after extended consultations, the administration is close to releasing a comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic strategy.
The Biden administration is getting high marks in Europe for its strong stand against a possible Russian attack on Ukraine—and for its careful consultation with European allies to coordinate a united response. This past week, Mr. Biden dispatched 3,000 U.S. troops to Eastern Europe and authorized an additional $200 million in defensive military aid to Ukraine, which an emergency airlift is delivering to Kyiv. Other NATO members—the U.K. and the Baltic states—also have sent weapons. Poland and the Czech Republic will soon join them. Last week Turkey agreed to allow Ukraine to manufacture Turkish-designed drones, which Ukraine has already used in the Donbas region.
Regrettably, Europe’s two leading countries haven’t been as firm in their opposition to Russian threats. Before French President Emmanuel Macron flew to Moscow to discuss a peace deal with Mr. Putin, he said that Russian security concerns were “legitimate” and that Western countries need to understand better “the contemporary traumas of this great people and great nation.” He intimated that the West would have to yield ground to reach an agreement. When he arrived in Moscow, he stated that the “Finlandization” of Ukraine would be “one of the models on the table” during his talks with Mr. Putin.
Olaf Scholz, Germany’s new chancellor, has been even more equivocal—so much so that Germany’s ambassador to the U.S. felt compelled to warn him that Washington was coming to regard Germany as an “unreliable partner.” Mr. Scholz has been criticized for refusing to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons, and Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas has generated suspicion in other Western capitals.
Very much on the defensive, Mr. Scholz flew to Washington on Monday to confer with Mr. Biden and congressional leaders. After the two leaders met, the president declared that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would “put an end” to the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. The chancellor spoke of unity but did not explicitly commit his country to this position.
Here at home, the issue of Ukraine has proved divisive for Republicans. While Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham have given Mr. Biden’s troop deployments their full support, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, darling of the burgeoning “national conservative” movement, called it a “mistake to send more American troops to Europe.”
This past weekend, three of the movement’s intellectual leaders published an article in the New York Times castigating the Cold War era’s “violently expansionist foreign policy,” which they dubbed “liberal imperialism,” and called on conservatives to reject the “crusader project” and embrace instead a posture of “cultural nonaggression abroad.”
In other words: Forget about democracy and individual rights beyond our borders. Let Russia do what it wants in Eastern Europe. Treat China, the world’s first total surveillance state, as a “civilizational equal.”
In the late 1940s, the U.S. faced a momentous choice: lead the Western resistance to the Soviet Union or retreat behind our borders, as we did after World War I. Spurning the advice of that era’s national conservatives—led by Sen. Robert Taft, who opposed the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—Republicans and Democrats came together to draw the line against Soviet expansion.
Now, as we face the choice between engagement and retreat for the third time in 100 years, we should ignore the voices counseling a foreign policy of moral relativism and stand firmly against the new axis of autocracy that threatens freedom and democracy everywhere.[/b]
he New Axis of Autocracy
Germany and France are weak links as the West faces an alliance of China and Russia. by William A. Galston, Feb. 8, 2022
The Feb. 4 meeting in Beijing between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping makes it official: The U.S. and its allies now face an axis of autocracy stretching from the Baltic to the Pacific.
What Russia and China have in common now is more important than what has divided them in the past. They reject the postwar economic and political order that the U.S. and its allies created. They are revanchist powers determined to regain territories they believe were separated unjustly from their homelands. They endured extended periods of national humiliation, which they are replacing with assertive national pride. And they see democracy as a threat, both inside and outside their borders.
China and Russia have made their choice, and the West must now respond, starting with the U.S.
President Biden is off to a good start. In the Asia-Pacific region, administration officials have shored up traditional alliances and are creating new ones. The strengthened Quad security arrangement involving Japan, India, the U.S. and Australia, coupled with the Aukus agreement to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, will enhance the West’s ability to resist Chinese aggression against Taiwan, Japan and other allies in the region. And after extended consultations, the administration is close to releasing a comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic strategy.
The Biden administration is getting high marks in Europe for its strong stand against a possible Russian attack on Ukraine—and for its careful consultation with European allies to coordinate a united response. This past week, Mr. Biden dispatched 3,000 U.S. troops to Eastern Europe and authorized an additional $200 million in defensive military aid to Ukraine, which an emergency airlift is delivering to Kyiv. Other NATO members—the U.K. and the Baltic states—also have sent weapons. Poland and the Czech Republic will soon join them. Last week Turkey agreed to allow Ukraine to manufacture Turkish-designed drones, which Ukraine has already used in the Donbas region.
Regrettably, Europe’s two leading countries haven’t been as firm in their opposition to Russian threats. Before French President Emmanuel Macron flew to Moscow to discuss a peace deal with Mr. Putin, he said that Russian security concerns were “legitimate” and that Western countries need to understand better “the contemporary traumas of this great people and great nation.” He intimated that the West would have to yield ground to reach an agreement. When he arrived in Moscow, he stated that the “Finlandization” of Ukraine would be “one of the models on the table” during his talks with Mr. Putin.
Olaf Scholz, Germany’s new chancellor, has been even more equivocal—so much so that Germany’s ambassador to the U.S. felt compelled to warn him that Washington was coming to regard Germany as an “unreliable partner.” Mr. Scholz has been criticized for refusing to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons, and Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas has generated suspicion in other Western capitals.
Very much on the defensive, Mr. Scholz flew to Washington on Monday to confer with Mr. Biden and congressional leaders. After the two leaders met, the president declared that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would “put an end” to the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. The chancellor spoke of unity but did not explicitly commit his country to this position.
Here at home, the issue of Ukraine has proved divisive for Republicans. While Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham have given Mr. Biden’s troop deployments their full support, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, darling of the burgeoning “national conservative” movement, called it a “mistake to send more American troops to Europe.”
This past weekend, three of the movement’s intellectual leaders published an article in the New York Times castigating the Cold War era’s “violently expansionist foreign policy,” which they dubbed “liberal imperialism,” and called on conservatives to reject the “crusader project” and embrace instead a posture of “cultural nonaggression abroad.”
In other words: Forget about democracy and individual rights beyond our borders. Let Russia do what it wants in Eastern Europe. Treat China, the world’s first total surveillance state, as a “civilizational equal.”
In the late 1940s, the U.S. faced a momentous choice: lead the Western resistance to the Soviet Union or retreat behind our borders, as we did after World War I. Spurning the advice of that era’s national conservatives—led by Sen. Robert Taft, who opposed the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—Republicans and Democrats came together to draw the line against Soviet expansion.
Now, as we face the choice between engagement and retreat for the third time in 100 years, we should ignore the voices counseling a foreign policy of moral relativism and stand firmly against the new axis of autocracy that threatens freedom and democracy everywhere.[/b]
Hawks Are Standing in the Way of a New Republican Party
Feb. 5, 2022
By Sohrab Ahmari, Patrick Deneen and Gladden Pappin
Mr. Ahmari, Mr. Deneen and Mr. Pappin have written extensively about conservatism and American politics.
A painful contradiction lies at the heart of the American right. Even as conservatives are breaking with some Cold War orthodoxies on domestic policy, Republican politicians remain wedded to that era’s violently expansionist foreign policy. They oppose liberal imperialism in the United States —the aggressive push to impose progressive values, often joined to corporate power — while still contriving to spread the same order to the ends of the earth.
It’s a contradictory vision, and for many members of the so-called new right who are pushing for a political realignment of the Republican Party, it presents a major stumbling block. We do not want to see this new vision of conservative American politics co-opted by hawkish ideologues more interested in posturing abroad than in reform here at home. Conservatives must make a clear break with neo-neoconservative foreign policy and instead emphasize widely shared material development at home and cultural nonaggression abroad as the keys to U.S. security.
The crisis in Ukraine illustrates the problem. Even Republicans sympathetic to the new right haven’t been able to resist the hawkish temptation. Among the loudest voices calling for escalation were Republican Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Marco Rubio of Florida, politicians who have otherwise tried to articulate a more populist domestic vision for their party. Senator Rubio resorted to inapt Churchill-Hitler parallels (though he later said he opposes deploying troops to Eastern Europe); Senator Cotton lambasted President Biden for “appeasing Vladimir Putin.”
The Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony has suggested he wants to forge a new, more solidaristic and inwardly focused consensus to replace the old, broken fusion of pro-business libertarians, religious traditionalists and foreign-policy hawks. Yet even at the 2021 national conservatism conference, the hawks were amply represented and pitched the same old belligerence, especially against China.
Today’s nationalist hawks often speak of an obligation to defend democratic allies dotting the peripheries of revanchist powers like Russia and China. But if they had their way, the real-world effects would be little different from those of their hawkish predecessors: protracted and destabilizing conflicts that would distract us from domestic reform — not to mention imperil the lives of overwhelmingly working-class young Americans in uniform.
Even on the new right, then, the goal of securing America by “making the world safe for democracy” refuses to die. It’s important to revisit the intellectual history to understand how it was that the right came to advance what is a liberal cause in the first place.
Since the earliest days of our nation, a division has existed between those who argued that America should be an “exemplary republic” and those who called instead for a “crusader nation.” The exemplarist camp figured that America could best serve liberty and self-government by perfecting domestic republicanism — without going abroad in search of “monsters to destroy,” as John Quincy Adams put it. The crusaders sought to expand liberal democracy abroad, partly because they thought this would make America more secure and partly because they believed it was our destiny to baptize all nations in liberal ideals.
The party of restraint was seen as conservative: cautious about the danger posed by war to republican virtues, respectful of enduring civilizational differences, humble in the face of unpredictable global events, hesitant to commit American blood and treasure to all but the most necessary military causes. By contrast, it was characteristically “liberal” to insist on an American duty to enlarge the liberal empire, whether through soft or hard power, a tradition exemplified by Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy.
More recently, self-described conservatives came to embrace the crusader project, a misguided shift culminating in President George W. Bush’s second Inaugural Address, with its fantasy of eliminating “tyranny” everywhere. What had been previously central to the liberal worldview came to be reframed as modern American “conservatism.”
Many of today’s Republicans thus came of age at a time when hawkishness on behalf of liberal values was understood as conservative. Yet the values lying at the foundation of that worldview and shaping our institutions are antithetical to everything conservatives claim to cherish: a ruthless market ideology that puts short-term shareholder gains and the whims of big finance above the demands of the national community; a virulent cultural libertinism that dissolves bonds of family and tradition.
What conservatives revile as “woke capital” is just this acidic combination of a market-centric economics and liberal cultural arrogance. Yet as conservatives tub-thump for NATO expansion in Europe and hawkishness elsewhere, they seem clueless as to what these things entail: the integration of evermore geographic space into the same socioeconomic order they find so oppressive at home.
From the post-Cold War “Washington consensus” (the idea that privatization, deregulation and free trade would lead to broad prosperity) to the post-9/11 regime-change wars, “crusader” foreign policy immiserated ordinary people: Thoughtless NATO expansion bred resentment in a wounded-but-still-strong Russia, setting the stage for recurring crises; economic “shock therapy” applied by disciples of Milton Friedman empowered predatory oligarchs in post-Soviet lands; the shattering of Arab states in the name of “freedom” created ungoverned spaces across vast swaths of the Middle East and North Africa, kindling terrorism and sending millions of migrants into Europe.
Like soldiers who haven’t realized the old war is over, Republicans must grasp the current state of play: Liberal imperialism ought no longer to be mistaken for a conservative cause. It is time to repurpose older conservative foreign-policy values.
The first pillar of such a foreign policy should be a sound restraint, especially where the United States doesn’t have formal treaty obligations, and a general retrenchment of the Western alliance’s ambitions. Senator Josh Hawley, a lawmaker sympathetic to the new right, showed a better path on Wednesday by calling on President Biden to rule out admitting Ukraine into NATO. Mr. Hawley suggested his move would help Washington shift resources to East Asia. But even there, Americans should beware of mindless China hawkism. Yes, the United States has real differences with Beijing. We must punish industrial espionage. We must defend treaty allies. And we must seek a more balanced trade relationship. But we should also find areas of cooperation, exchange and shared interests, seeking to avoid any future wars and instead communicating with mutual respect for a civilizational equal.
Domestic industrial prowess and energy independence should be the second pillar. Without factories manufacturing all sorts of goods, we won’t be able to shift production to defense — or to P.P.E. and vaccines — when a real crisis hits. Moreover, as Michael Lind has emphasized, the industrial-military blocs of the future — spheres of influence led by America, Europe, China and India — will be only as strong as their regional supply chains and their internal stability allow.
Many G.O.P. leaders couldn’t be happier if the impulses toward Republican realignment were limited to mere jingoism. That, after all, has sated the Republican base while keeping economic policy firmly neoliberal. The party establishment would far rather talk about Ukraine than about declining working-class life expectancy and the fentanyl crisis.
The persistence of donor-backed Republican hawkishness remains an obstacle to national development — of industrial capacity and widely shared solidarity — that would strengthen America’s defenses and ennoble its culture. The monsters that menace us don’t lurk abroad.
Things are moving faster than they seem, ...like The Guns of August.
Just hope the Russians stay undefeated in Olympic Ice Hockey.
Informative update in today's D Brief from Defense One : February 10, 2022
As "phase two" of its drills with Belarus begin, the Russian navy is firing off shells today in three regions around Ukraine: The Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait (map here). The latter sits as an entry point into the Azov Sea from Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, which Russia invaded in 2014, when it began supporting a separatist insurgency in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.
Kyiv's foreign affairs office is irate over the artillery and naval drills. "The unprecedentedly large area of exercises essentially disables international navigation in both seas, leading to economic consequences in the region and for Ukrainian ports in particular," Foreign Affairs spokesman Oleg Nikolenko said in a tweet this morning.
A note on Russia's Black Sea naval presence: It currently involves "13 large landing ships…with dozens of landing craft and fast-attack boats," which would give it "the capability to conduct a brigade [or larger-sized] amphibious landing," tweeted former Marine officer Rob Lee, who now studies the Russian military. Russia also recently sent more troops closer to Ukraine's border with Belarus, and dispatched "SU-25 and SU-35 jet fighters, electronic jamming systems, nuclear-capable Iskander missile systems, and S-400 surface-to-air missile systems to Belarus," the Wall Street Journal reports.
The Kremlin's navy is also drilling in the Mediterranean Sea, which could have a useful dual purpose as a deterrent against NATO involvement, said Lee. And that would all seem to suggest that "If Russia was planning on a military escalation in Ukraine, the next 2-3 weeks make the most sense. The capabilities are there, the ground in [north and northeast] Ukraine is in better condition, and [Russia's] Eastern Military District troops will be more proficient after the exercise in Belarus."
From the UK's point of view, "This is probably the most dangerous moment, I would say in the course of the next few days, in what is the biggest security crisis that Europe has faced for decades, and we've got to get it right," Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Thursday during a visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels.
BoJo's recommendation: That NATO stick to "sanctions and military resolve plus diplomacy" as it weathers whatever lies ahead. Johnson also said 1,000 British troops are now on alert for crisis response, should Russia greenlight a new invasion of Ukraine. Reuters has a bit more on that, here.
Johnson's top diplomat is in Moscow today, and it's already gone very poorly. So poorly, in fact, that Russia's top diplomat reportedly left a joint press conference early after complaining that speaking to his British counterpart, Liz Truss, was "like talking to a deaf person," and declared, "Ideological approaches, ultimatums, and moralizing is a road to nowhere." (Recall that Russia has tried to assassinate several individuals in the UK over the past several years, including former Russian military officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter back in 2018.)
Kyiv's president continues to project calm from the capital. Speaking to business leaders on Thursday, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy assured them, "We have enough resources and weapons to protect our country."
Bigger picture: "I'm not sure Russia can keep tensions high for most of 2022 and extract strategic benefits from it," said Rob Lee. After all, he argued Wednesday, "Threats from Russian officials haven't compelled NATO members to make serious concessions yet and Ukrainians are going about their lives as if nothing is happening." However, he concedes, "much of Russia's current behavior and the buildup have been unprecedented, so Russia's next steps may also be unprecedented."
Can the 2015 Minsk agreement be revived as a path toward peace in Ukraine? Diplomats from France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine are meeting today in Berlin to possibly try and answer that question.
ICYMI: The first of about 1,000 U.S. troops heading to Romania arrived Wednesday. Stars and Stripes has more on that mission, here.*
Contingency planning, Pacific friends edition: "Japan has decided to divert some of its [liquified natural] gas reserves to Europe amid growing concern over possible disruptions of supplies due to the crisis," the Associated Press reported Wednesday from Tokyo. That request came from U.S. and European Union officials. Agence France-Presse has more, here
*US advance troops arrive in Romania by JOHN VANDIVER• STARS AND STRIPES • FEBRUARY 8, 2022
U.S. soldiers assigned to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment conduct an after action review during an exercise at Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany, Jan. 11, 2022. About 100 soldiers have arrived in Romania in advance of a follow-on force of cavalry troops, Romanian officials said Feb. 8.
U.S. soldiers assigned to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment conduct an after action review during an exercise at Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany, Jan. 11,
STUTTGART, Germany— About 100 U.S. service members have arrived in Romania to lay the groundwork for a follow-on force that is deploying to reassure allies worried about potential Russian aggression, Romanian officials said Tuesday.
Defense Minister Vasile Dancu told reporters in Romania that “the Americans have arrived,” while another 1,000 troops are on the way.
U.S. Army Europe and Africa confirmed in a statement Tuesday that elements of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment “have started movement to Romania and are due to arrive over the coming days.”
U.S. forces actually have been in Romania long before the decision to send elements of the Vilseck, Germany-based 2nd Cavalry Regiment to the country. There are about 900 U.S. troops carrying out a wide range of long-standing missions, U.S. European Command said last week. The incoming cavalry soldiers will more than double those troop levels.
President Joe Biden ordered 3,000 U.S. troops — 2,000 of which are coming from Fort Bragg, N.C. — to be repositioned in an effort to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank. About 1,700 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne will work out of Poland, while another 300 soldiers will set up a task force headquarters in Germany.
The moves come amid concerns about Russia’s military buildup around Ukraine, which has sparked fears of a new invasion of that country. To date, there has been no indication that Moscow intends to target NATO members. Still, as tensions have ratcheted up, allies in central and Eastern Europe have sought security reassurance.
It isn’t unusual for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment to carry out missions beyond its garrison in Bavaria. For years, the unit has convoyed along NATO’s eastern flank for training exercises. The regiment also has led NATO’s multinational battlegroup in northeastern Poland, some 50 miles from Russia’s military exclave of Kaliningrad.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:16 pm
Things are moving faster than they seem, ...like The Guns of August.
Just hope the Russians stay undefeated in Olympic Ice Hockey.
Informative update in today's D Brief from Defense One : February 10, 2022
As "phase two" of its drills with Belarus begin, the Russian navy is firing off shells today in three regions around Ukraine: The Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait (map here). The latter sits as an entry point into the Azov Sea from Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, which Russia invaded in 2014, when it began supporting a separatist insurgency in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.
Kyiv's foreign affairs office is irate over the artillery and naval drills. "The unprecedentedly large area of exercises essentially disables international navigation in both seas, leading to economic consequences in the region and for Ukrainian ports in particular," Foreign Affairs spokesman Oleg Nikolenko said in a tweet this morning.
A note on Russia's Black Sea naval presence: It currently involves "13 large landing ships…with dozens of landing craft and fast-attack boats," which would give it "the capability to conduct a brigade [or larger-sized] amphibious landing," tweeted former Marine officer Rob Lee, who now studies the Russian military. Russia also recently sent more troops closer to Ukraine's border with Belarus, and dispatched "SU-25 and SU-35 jet fighters, electronic jamming systems, nuclear-capable Iskander missile systems, and S-400 surface-to-air missile systems to Belarus," the Wall Street Journal reports.
The Kremlin's navy is also drilling in the Mediterranean Sea, which could have a useful dual purpose as a deterrent against NATO involvement, said Lee. And that would all seem to suggest that "If Russia was planning on a military escalation in Ukraine, the next 2-3 weeks make the most sense. The capabilities are there, the ground in [north and northeast] Ukraine is in better condition, and [Russia's] Eastern Military District troops will be more proficient after the exercise in Belarus."
From the UK's point of view, "This is probably the most dangerous moment, I would say in the course of the next few days, in what is the biggest security crisis that Europe has faced for decades, and we've got to get it right," Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Thursday during a visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels.
BoJo's recommendation: That NATO stick to "sanctions and military resolve plus diplomacy" as it weathers whatever lies ahead. Johnson also said 1,000 British troops are now on alert for crisis response, should Russia greenlight a new invasion of Ukraine. Reuters has a bit more on that, here.
Johnson's top diplomat is in Moscow today, and it's already gone very poorly. So poorly, in fact, that Russia's top diplomat reportedly left a joint press conference early after complaining that speaking to his British counterpart, Liz Truss, was "like talking to a deaf person," and declared, "Ideological approaches, ultimatums, and moralizing is a road to nowhere." (Recall that Russia has tried to assassinate several individuals in the UK over the past several years, including former Russian military officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter back in 2018.)
Kyiv's president continues to project calm from the capital. Speaking to business leaders on Thursday, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy assured them, "We have enough resources and weapons to protect our country."
Bigger picture: "I'm not sure Russia can keep tensions high for most of 2022 and extract strategic benefits from it," said Rob Lee. After all, he argued Wednesday, "Threats from Russian officials haven't compelled NATO members to make serious concessions yet and Ukrainians are going about their lives as if nothing is happening." However, he concedes, "much of Russia's current behavior and the buildup have been unprecedented, so Russia's next steps may also be unprecedented."
Can the 2015 Minsk agreement be revived as a path toward peace in Ukraine? Diplomats from France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine are meeting today in Berlin to possibly try and answer that question.
ICYMI: The first of about 1,000 U.S. troops heading to Romania arrived Wednesday. Stars and Stripes has more on that mission, here.*
Contingency planning, Pacific friends edition: "Japan has decided to divert some of its [liquified natural] gas reserves to Europe amid growing concern over possible disruptions of supplies due to the crisis," the Associated Press reported Wednesday from Tokyo. That request came from U.S. and European Union officials. Agence France-Presse has more, here
*US advance troops arrive in Romania by JOHN VANDIVER• STARS AND STRIPES • FEBRUARY 8, 2022
U.S. soldiers assigned to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment conduct an after action review during an exercise at Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany, Jan. 11, 2022. About 100 soldiers have arrived in Romania in advance of a follow-on force of cavalry troops, Romanian officials said Feb. 8.
U.S. soldiers assigned to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment conduct an after action review during an exercise at Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany, Jan. 11,
STUTTGART, Germany— About 100 U.S. service members have arrived in Romania to lay the groundwork for a follow-on force that is deploying to reassure allies worried about potential Russian aggression, Romanian officials said Tuesday.
Defense Minister Vasile Dancu told reporters in Romania that “the Americans have arrived,” while another 1,000 troops are on the way.
U.S. Army Europe and Africa confirmed in a statement Tuesday that elements of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment “have started movement to Romania and are due to arrive over the coming days.”
U.S. forces actually have been in Romania long before the decision to send elements of the Vilseck, Germany-based 2nd Cavalry Regiment to the country. There are about 900 U.S. troops carrying out a wide range of long-standing missions, U.S. European Command said last week. The incoming cavalry soldiers will more than double those troop levels.
President Joe Biden ordered 3,000 U.S. troops — 2,000 of which are coming from Fort Bragg, N.C. — to be repositioned in an effort to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank. About 1,700 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne will work out of Poland, while another 300 soldiers will set up a task force headquarters in Germany.
The moves come amid concerns about Russia’s military buildup around Ukraine, which has sparked fears of a new invasion of that country. To date, there has been no indication that Moscow intends to target NATO members. Still, as tensions have ratcheted up, allies in central and Eastern Europe have sought security reassurance.
It isn’t unusual for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment to carry out missions beyond its garrison in Bavaria. For years, the unit has convoyed along NATO’s eastern flank for training exercises. The regiment also has led NATO’s multinational battlegroup in northeastern Poland, some 50 miles from Russia’s military exclave of Kaliningrad.
Kerch Bridge is gone shortly after commencement of pleasantries. No way it can be defended. One Turkish drone or two would do it.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:35 pm
Kerch Bridge is gone shortly after commencement of pleasantries. No way it can be defended. One Turkish drone or two would do it.
That would be an epic fail for Russia's air defense system.
Hawks Are Standing in the Way of a New Republican Party
Feb. 5, 2022
By Sohrab Ahmari, Patrick Deneen and Gladden Pappin
Mr. Ahmari, Mr. Deneen and Mr. Pappin have written extensively about conservatism and American politics.
A painful contradiction lies at the heart of the American right. Even as conservatives are breaking with some Cold War orthodoxies on domestic policy, Republican politicians remain wedded to that era’s violently expansionist foreign policy. They oppose liberal imperialism in the United States —the aggressive push to impose progressive values, often joined to corporate power — while still contriving to spread the same order to the ends of the earth.
It’s a contradictory vision, and for many members of the so-called new right who are pushing for a political realignment of the Republican Party, it presents a major stumbling block. We do not want to see this new vision of conservative American politics co-opted by hawkish ideologues more interested in posturing abroad than in reform here at home. Conservatives must make a clear break with neo-neoconservative foreign policy and instead emphasize widely shared material development at home and cultural nonaggression abroad as the keys to U.S. security.
The crisis in Ukraine illustrates the problem. Even Republicans sympathetic to the new right haven’t been able to resist the hawkish temptation. Among the loudest voices calling for escalation were Republican Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Marco Rubio of Florida, politicians who have otherwise tried to articulate a more populist domestic vision for their party. Senator Rubio resorted to inapt Churchill-Hitler parallels (though he later said he opposes deploying troops to Eastern Europe); Senator Cotton lambasted President Biden for “appeasing Vladimir Putin.”
The Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony has suggested he wants to forge a new, more solidaristic and inwardly focused consensus to replace the old, broken fusion of pro-business libertarians, religious traditionalists and foreign-policy hawks. Yet even at the 2021 national conservatism conference, the hawks were amply represented and pitched the same old belligerence, especially against China.
Today’s nationalist hawks often speak of an obligation to defend democratic allies dotting the peripheries of revanchist powers like Russia and China. But if they had their way, the real-world effects would be little different from those of their hawkish predecessors: protracted and destabilizing conflicts that would distract us from domestic reform — not to mention imperil the lives of overwhelmingly working-class young Americans in uniform.
Even on the new right, then, the goal of securing America by “making the world safe for democracy” refuses to die. It’s important to revisit the intellectual history to understand how it was that the right came to advance what is a liberal cause in the first place.
Since the earliest days of our nation, a division has existed between those who argued that America should be an “exemplary republic” and those who called instead for a “crusader nation.” The exemplarist camp figured that America could best serve liberty and self-government by perfecting domestic republicanism — without going abroad in search of “monsters to destroy,” as John Quincy Adams put it. The crusaders sought to expand liberal democracy abroad, partly because they thought this would make America more secure and partly because they believed it was our destiny to baptize all nations in liberal ideals.
The party of restraint was seen as conservative: cautious about the danger posed by war to republican virtues, respectful of enduring civilizational differences, humble in the face of unpredictable global events, hesitant to commit American blood and treasure to all but the most necessary military causes. By contrast, it was characteristically “liberal” to insist on an American duty to enlarge the liberal empire, whether through soft or hard power, a tradition exemplified by Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy.
More recently, self-described conservatives came to embrace the crusader project, a misguided shift culminating in President George W. Bush’s second Inaugural Address, with its fantasy of eliminating “tyranny” everywhere. What had been previously central to the liberal worldview came to be reframed as modern American “conservatism.”
Many of today’s Republicans thus came of age at a time when hawkishness on behalf of liberal values was understood as conservative. Yet the values lying at the foundation of that worldview and shaping our institutions are antithetical to everything conservatives claim to cherish: a ruthless market ideology that puts short-term shareholder gains and the whims of big finance above the demands of the national community; a virulent cultural libertinism that dissolves bonds of family and tradition.
What conservatives revile as “woke capital” is just this acidic combination of a market-centric economics and liberal cultural arrogance. Yet as conservatives tub-thump for NATO expansion in Europe and hawkishness elsewhere, they seem clueless as to what these things entail: the integration of evermore geographic space into the same socioeconomic order they find so oppressive at home.
From the post-Cold War “Washington consensus” (the idea that privatization, deregulation and free trade would lead to broad prosperity) to the post-9/11 regime-change wars, “crusader” foreign policy immiserated ordinary people: Thoughtless NATO expansion bred resentment in a wounded-but-still-strong Russia, setting the stage for recurring crises; economic “shock therapy” applied by disciples of Milton Friedman empowered predatory oligarchs in post-Soviet lands; the shattering of Arab states in the name of “freedom” created ungoverned spaces across vast swaths of the Middle East and North Africa, kindling terrorism and sending millions of migrants into Europe.
Like soldiers who haven’t realized the old war is over, Republicans must grasp the current state of play: Liberal imperialism ought no longer to be mistaken for a conservative cause. It is time to repurpose older conservative foreign-policy values.
The first pillar of such a foreign policy should be a sound restraint, especially where the United States doesn’t have formal treaty obligations, and a general retrenchment of the Western alliance’s ambitions. Senator Josh Hawley, a lawmaker sympathetic to the new right, showed a better path on Wednesday by calling on President Biden to rule out admitting Ukraine into NATO. Mr. Hawley suggested his move would help Washington shift resources to East Asia. But even there, Americans should beware of mindless China hawkism. Yes, the United States has real differences with Beijing. We must punish industrial espionage. We must defend treaty allies. And we must seek a more balanced trade relationship. But we should also find areas of cooperation, exchange and shared interests, seeking to avoid any future wars and instead communicating with mutual respect for a civilizational equal.
Domestic industrial prowess and energy independence should be the second pillar. Without factories manufacturing all sorts of goods, we won’t be able to shift production to defense — or to P.P.E. and vaccines — when a real crisis hits. Moreover, as Michael Lind has emphasized, the industrial-military blocs of the future — spheres of influence led by America, Europe, China and India — will be only as strong as their regional supply chains and their internal stability allow.
Many G.O.P. leaders couldn’t be happier if the impulses toward Republican realignment were limited to mere jingoism. That, after all, has sated the Republican base while keeping economic policy firmly neoliberal. The party establishment would far rather talk about Ukraine than about declining working-class life expectancy and the fentanyl crisis.
The persistence of donor-backed Republican hawkishness remains an obstacle to national development — of industrial capacity and widely shared solidarity — that would strengthen America’s defenses and ennoble its culture. The monsters that menace us don’t lurk abroad.
I keep telling you....this "New Right" is simply the Post WWII libs. Have a look. Theres' nothing in there that Bernie Sanders hasn't already said.
It appears that Lukashenko is anxious to bring Belarus into the fray. That, plus Russian forces now "exercising" in Belarus opens the possibility of a thrust through the Suwalki gap in Poland & Lithuania to open a corridor to Kaliningrad.
Russia’s Massive Military Drills on Ukraine Border Stir Invasion Fears
Western officials believe Moscow has sent up to 30,000 troops to Belarus in what they fear could be a key element of any invasion
Russian troops have started large-scale military operations in Belarus, potentially escalating the standoff between Moscow and Western powers. The move may serve as a possible precursor to a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Russia kicked off large-scale military exercises in Belarus on its western borders with Poland and Lithuania and along its southern flank near Ukraine, an escalation of the standoff between Moscow and Western powers and a possible precursor to a Russian invasion of a smaller neighbor.
Western officials believe the Russian exercises in Belarus could open a possible new vector to launch an attack on Ukraine, adding to the 100,000 troops Moscow has already deployed to the Russian-Ukrainian border. The Kremlin says the military activity is in response to a threat from the West to its own security.
Russia and Belarus, which conduct joint military drills routinely, have said the exercises, called United Resolve, are meant to test the readiness of their forces in neutralizing military threats and securing borders.
Video released by Russia’s Defense Ministry after the drills started on Thursday showed Russian tanks rumbling across snowy fields, soldiers firing artillery, jet fighters taking off in formation and missile systems deployed for use.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday denounced the exercises as psychological pressure, while French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian described them as a violent gesture. In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Western concerns over the drills were incomprehensible.
Moscow has said the troops will leave Belarus once the exercises conclude on Feb. 20. Ukraine launched its own military exercises in response on Thursday involving drones and antitank weapons sent by North Atlantic Treaty Organization members Turkey and the U.K. Those drills will also conclude on Feb. 20.
Also Thursday, the U.S. Navy said that it had deployed four more destroyers to Europe, for maritime exercises with NATO allies. The Navy didn’t say how long the ships would operate in the region. The destroyers join four other destroyers already assigned there.
Russia and Ukraine haven’t disclosed the number of troops involved in drills, which started Thursday. Russia’s Defense Ministry has said they don’t exceed limits set by a 2011 agreement with Europe, according to which exercises involving more than 9,000 troops require notification.
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the drills in late December during a joint summit with his Belarusian counterpart, Alexander Lukashenko.
But the U.S. and NATO expect the drills to involve 30,000 troops, making them the largest military exercises since the Cold War. They warn that the exercises could be part of a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Military analysts say the timing of the exercises and the total number of troops and kind of weapons systems deployed confirm that view.
They said that, according to satellite imagery and open-source data, Moscow has deployed as part of the drills SU-25 and SU-35 jet fighters, electronic jamming systems, nuclear-capable Iskander missile systems and S-400 surface-to-air missile systems to Belarus, which shares a 700-mile border with Ukraine.
“This is clearly more than a readiness exercise,” said Rob Lee, an expert on the Russian military and fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a U.S. think tank. “At minimum it is coercive—or it is part of preparations for an invasion.”
Military analysts also point to the late announcement of the drills and their timing in February—compared with August or September for previous exercises there—as being out of the ordinary.
Furthermore, the troops have been transported across thousands of miles from Russia’s far east, while the soldiers in western Russia typically deployed for drills in Belarus have remained in place. Analysts said that Moscow might be keeping them ready for an incursion into eastern Ukraine, already the site of a protracted Moscow-backed rebellion.
The extensive military buildup just 140 miles from Kyiv has prompted fears that Russia could launch a multidirectional attack.
Moscow, which has said it isn’t planning an invasion, has massed troops in southern Russia around Ukraine and on the Crimean peninsula—which it annexed in 2014—effectively surrounding the country. The Kremlin has also deployed warships to the Black Sea for naval exercises later this month.
Even if Russia doesn’t enter Ukraine through Belarus in an invasion, the deployments would stretch Kyiv’s forces by having to defend against a threat to the north, military experts said.
They also allow Moscow to defend its exposed western exclave of Kaliningrad, which is sandwiched between the EU and NATO members Poland and Lithuania, and provide an effective deterrent against NATO. The electronic-jamming systems, Mr. Lee pointed out, could be used to stop NATO members from helping Kyiv with intelligence gathering.
Ultimately, said Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, Moscow’s priority is “to create diversions, muddy the waters, create a false narrative so that its main offensive—if it comes—would be more of a surprise.”
Satellite images show Russian missiles and large-scale artillery stationed around Ukraine’s borders. WSJ examined images of the equipment deployed by Moscow to understand why U.S. security experts say Russia could stage an attack from multiple locations.
U.S. officials on Sunday estimated that Moscow had in place 70% of the forces it needs to launch a full-scale invasion. The Belarus deployments could be one of the last pieces in the puzzle.
“Political intentions can change very swiftly but capabilities can’t. And the capabilities for a big regional war are now in place,” Mr. Felgenhauer said.
Russia’s deployments to Belarus have been invited by the country’s longtime leader, Mr. Lukashenko, who last month said they were needed to respond to the presence of NATO troops in Poland and the Baltic states, and Ukrainian forces at his border. The Ukrainian troops were deployed there in response to last fall’s migrant crisis at the Belarus-Poland border that Western officials accuse Mr. Lukashenko of engineering.
Mr. Lukashenko, who has ruled Belarus since 1994, has become increasingly reliant on Moscow’s patronage, after the U.S. and the EU imposed punishing sanctions on his government and state companies for brutally putting down protests in August 2020, diverting a Ryanair flight carrying a dissident journalist and forcing it to land in Minsk last May and orchestrating the migrant crisis.
Artyom Shraibman, a Belarusian political analyst, said that Mr. Lukashenko in recent months had increasingly staked out a position as a key military ally as a way to prove his value to the Kremlin leadership and ensure Moscow continues to back him.
Mr. Lukashenko’s “only way forward is to depend on Russia,” Mr. Shraibman said. “His political survival rests on Putin always finding it necessary to support him because he is a dependable ally in hard times.”
The Kremlin has welcomed Mr. Lukashenko’s strategy. “This allows Moscow to have an extremely loyal military outpost aimed in an important direction,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, chairman of a Kremlin advisory board on foreign and defense policy. “Given the political phase that we find ourselves in right now with the West and Ukraine, it’s a very valuable asset to have in the current moment and coming period.”
In recent months, Mr. Lukashenko has endorsed Russia’s annexation of Crimea, ended Belarus’s neutral stance on the Ukraine conflict and offered to allow Moscow to deploy nuclear weapons in his country. Russia in turn has extended Minsk some $2 billion in loans.
In an interview with a pro-Kremlin television host on Sunday, Mr. Lukashenko said Belarus would launch joint military operations with Russia against Kyiv if it attacked Moscow-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.
“Do you think we are joking at the southern border?” Mr. Lukashenko said, referring to the joint Russian-Belarusian exercises.
A tighter alliance between Moscow and Minsk heralds an extended confrontation with NATO, said Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a U.K. think tank.
In the standoff over Ukraine, Mr. Putin has demanded that NATO not accept any more Eastern European countries and stop deploying troops and weapons near Russia’s borders. With Mr. Lukashenko firmly on the Russian president’s side, Mr. Gould-Davies, a former U.K. ambassador to Belarus, worries that the threat from Belarus might not just be directed at Ukraine in the coming months.
“In all of what’s going on, with complex moving parts and a great deal of uncertainty, we should assume that Russia will do things that we are not necessarily looking at, or are focusing on,” he said. “They will plan to surprise us.”
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 8:37 pm
I keep telling you....this "New Right" is simply the Post WWII libs. Have a look. Theres' nothing in there that Bernie Sanders hasn't already said.
So was Pat Buchanan, before you ever heard of Bernie. You just weren't paying attention to Buchanan.
Sandwiched between Poland to the N, & Romania to the S,
Hungary & Slovakia each share a narrow eastern border with Ukraine.
Don't expect either to welcome any NATO presence.
The weak links in NATO's eastern front.
Last week, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban visited Putin, seeking a 36 year guaranteed natural gas deal.
Orban has argued against sanctioning Russia at the European level, and on Tuesday said that such penalties “have been more damaging to Hungary than to Russia.”
“In my opinion, (sanctions) are a tool doomed to failure in international politics. Neither in the case of Russia nor in the case of any other country do I consider them to be effective,” Orban said.
At the news conference in Moscow , Putin signaled that he was ready to increase gas supplies to Hungary from 4.5 billion to 5.5 billion cubic meters per year, adding that Hungary would be insulated from future energy price spikes in Europe by its long-term contract with Russia.
Slovaks protest defense treaty with US as lawmakers debate
Thousands of Slovaks rally to protest a defense military treaty between this NATO member and the United States, in Bratislava, Slovakia,
BRATISLAVA, Slovakia (AP) — Thousands of Slovaks rallied Tuesday to protest a military defense treaty between their nation and the United States, which are both members of NATO.
Waving national flags and banners such as “Stop USA Army,” the protesters gathered in Bratislava in front of Parliament, where lawmakers were debating the Defense Cooperation Agreement. Police prevented some protesters from entering the building.
The parliamentary debate was obstructed by opposition lawmakers, who used whistles to prevent others from speaking. They also seized an Ukrainian flag unveiled by the coalition lawmakers, after pouring water on it and a lawmaker who was holding it.
Ukraine’s embassy in Bratislava protested the incident, which took place amid fears of Russia’s possible invasion of Ukraine as more than 100,000 Russian troops massed in areas near Ukraine’s border.
A vote by Slovak lawmakers on the measure is expected on Wednesday.
The protest united the Slovak opposition, including the far-right People’s Party Our Slovakia and the leftist Smer-Social Democracy of former populist Prime Minister Robert Fico. Fico supported the treaty when he started the negotiations on it with the U.S. in 2018 but has since turned into a vocal opponent.
The agreement has been supported by Prime Minister Eduard Heger’s four-party ruling coalition government, which said it will “significantly enhance our security.”
The opposition claims it would compromise the country’s sovereignty, make possible a permanent presence of U.S. troops on Slovak territory, enable a deployment of nuclear weapons in Slovakia and provoke Russia. The Slovak and U.S. governments have rejected those charges.
The treaty allows the U.S. military to use two Slovak air force bases — Malacky-Kuchyna and Sliac — for 10 years while Slovakia will receive $100 million from the U.S. to modernize them.
Any particular future deployment of U.S. forces will still need approval by the Slovak government and Parliament.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 9:03 pm
Sandwiched between Poland to the N, & Romania to the S,
Hungary & Slovakia each share a narrow eastern border with Ukraine.
Don't expect either to welcome any NATO presence.
The weak links in NATO's eastern front.
Last week, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban visited Putin, seeking a 36 year guaranteed natural gas deal.
Orban has argued against sanctioning Russia at the European level, and on Tuesday said that such penalties “have been more damaging to Hungary than to Russia.”
“In my opinion, (sanctions) are a tool doomed to failure in international politics. Neither in the case of Russia nor in the case of any other country do I consider them to be effective,” Orban said.
At the news conference in Moscow , Putin signaled that he was ready to increase gas supplies to Hungary from 4.5 billion to 5.5 billion cubic meters per year, adding that Hungary would be insulated from future energy price spikes in Europe by its long-term contract with Russia.
Slovaks protest defense treaty with US as lawmakers debate
Thousands of Slovaks rally to protest a defense military treaty between this NATO member and the United States, in Bratislava, Slovakia,
BRATISLAVA, Slovakia (AP) — Thousands of Slovaks rallied Tuesday to protest a military defense treaty between their nation and the United States, which are both members of NATO.
Waving national flags and banners such as “Stop USA Army,” the protesters gathered in Bratislava in front of Parliament, where lawmakers were debating the Defense Cooperation Agreement. Police prevented some protesters from entering the building.
The parliamentary debate was obstructed by opposition lawmakers, who used whistles to prevent others from speaking. They also seized an Ukrainian flag unveiled by the coalition lawmakers, after pouring water on it and a lawmaker who was holding it.
Ukraine’s embassy in Bratislava protested the incident, which took place amid fears of Russia’s possible invasion of Ukraine as more than 100,000 Russian troops massed in areas near Ukraine’s border.
A vote by Slovak lawmakers on the measure is expected on Wednesday.
The protest united the Slovak opposition, including the far-right People’s Party Our Slovakia and the leftist Smer-Social Democracy of former populist Prime Minister Robert Fico. Fico supported the treaty when he started the negotiations on it with the U.S. in 2018 but has since turned into a vocal opponent.
The agreement has been supported by Prime Minister Eduard Heger’s four-party ruling coalition government, which said it will “significantly enhance our security.”
The opposition claims it would compromise the country’s sovereignty, make possible a permanent presence of U.S. troops on Slovak territory, enable a deployment of nuclear weapons in Slovakia and provoke Russia. The Slovak and U.S. governments have rejected those charges.
The treaty allows the U.S. military to use two Slovak air force bases — Malacky-Kuchyna and Sliac — for 10 years while Slovakia will receive $100 million from the U.S. to modernize them.
Any particular future deployment of U.S. forces will still need approval by the Slovak government and Parliament.
Well, thousands of Slovaks anyway.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 8:37 pm
I keep telling you....this "New Right" is simply the Post WWII libs. Have a look. Theres' nothing in there that Bernie Sanders hasn't already said.
So was Pat Buchanan, before you ever heard of Bernie. You just weren't paying attention to Buchanan.
Absolutely true. Buchanan also wanted everyone to pay in for health care......no deadbeats.
Your party ignored him.
So....who is it in your party that you and this author think is this "New Right"? I don't know anyone who thinks we should close bases and focus on domestic issues like education. Who's for cutting military spending in your party?
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 8:37 pm
I keep telling you....this "New Right" is simply the Post WWII libs. Have a look. Theres' nothing in there that Bernie Sanders hasn't already said.
So was Pat Buchanan, before you ever heard of Bernie. You just weren't paying attention to Buchanan.
Absolutely true. Buchanan also wanted everyone to pay in for health care......no deadbeats.
Your party ignored him.
So....who is it in your party that you and this author think is this "New Right"? I don't know anyone who thinks we should close bases and focus on domestic issues like education. Who's for cutting military spending in your party?
As usual, you present a false choice -- what bases did Buchanan say we should close ? His focus on education ? He'd probably like to give you a voucher to go to Gonzaga in return for the taxes your parents paid to support your local public schools.
Refresh my memory of his health care plan.
Who's the New Right ? Read what Hawley wrote on Ukraine. I posted it once already.
Also, off the top of my head -- JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Dan Crenshaw.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 8:37 pm
I keep telling you....this "New Right" is simply the Post WWII libs. Have a look. Theres' nothing in there that Bernie Sanders hasn't already said.
So was Pat Buchanan, before you ever heard of Bernie. You just weren't paying attention to Buchanan.
Absolutely true. Buchanan also wanted everyone to pay in for health care......no deadbeats.
Your party ignored him.
So....who is it in your party that you and this author think is this "New Right"? I don't know anyone who thinks we should close bases and focus on domestic issues like education. Who's for cutting military spending in your party?
As usual, you present a false choice -- what bases did Buchanan say we should close ?
He didn't. That's the point. Your party isn't going to do any of the things detailed in the piece on "the New Right". There is no such thing as "the New Right".
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 11:48 pm
Refresh my memory of his health care plan.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 11:48 pm
Who's the New Right ? Read what Hawley wrote on Ukraine. I posted it once already.
Also, off the top of my head -- JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Dan Crenshaw.
Vance isn't in office.
Where would you get the idea that Gabbard or Crenshaw would close bases and cut the military to focus our treasure on investing in our domestic needs?
That's not happening, OS. And if that's not what they're doing, there's nothing "New" about these ideas. It's a military pivot to other areas of the world. BFD.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 8:37 pm
I keep telling you....this "New Right" is simply the Post WWII libs. Have a look. Theres' nothing in there that Bernie Sanders hasn't already said.
So was Pat Buchanan, before you ever heard of Bernie. You just weren't paying attention to Buchanan.
Absolutely true. Buchanan also wanted everyone to pay in for health care......no deadbeats.
Your party ignored him.
So....who is it in your party that you and this author think is this "New Right"? I don't know anyone who thinks we should close bases and focus on domestic issues like education. Who's for cutting military spending in your party?
As usual, you present a false choice -- what bases did Buchanan say we should close ?
He didn't. That's the point. Your party isn't going to do any of the things detailed in the piece on "the New Right". There is no such thing as "the New Right".
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 11:48 pm
Refresh my memory of his health care plan.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 11:48 pm
Who's the New Right ? Read what Hawley wrote on Ukraine. I posted it once already.
Also, off the top of my head -- JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Dan Crenshaw.
Vance isn't in office.
Where would you get the idea that Gabbard or Crenshaw would close bases and cut the military to focus our treasure on investing in our domestic needs?
That's not happening, OS. And if that's not what they're doing, there's nothing "New" about these ideas. It's a military pivot to other areas of the world. BFD.
Because I take the time to listen to what Hawley, Vance, Gabbard & Crenshaw have to say.
Now I love those cowboys, I love their gold
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Impossible!! Putin has been playing Chess, all other world leaders are "doing it wrong" (especially the Dems, naturally), and there is
no downside whatsoever to invading the country with the worst economy in the entire region.
No matter what Putin does, he wins! ....or have you forgotten?
