#Sumantra Maitra

[darkmaga-returns]

Sumantra Maitra

Oct 24, 2024

“If they’re a cobelligerent, their intention is to participate in this war on Russia’s behalf, that is a very, very serious issue,” U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Wednesday, adding that he was “seeing evidence that there are North Korean troops that have gone to Russia”.

This marks the first confirmation of DPRK troops in Russia, ostensibly a deployment of about half of a corps.

This also marks the first time since the Cold War that Asian troops will be active in a European war zone on this scale. The last such instance was the conflict in Czechoslovakia in 1968, which was crushed by Soviet troops with a significant Central Asian contingent. 

Austin, however, left a few things unsaid. 

A decent reporter should immediately ask Austin how he defines “cobelligerence” in this context. Is providing targeting coordinates, for example, “cobelligerence”? By that logic, NATO has been a cobelligerent for a long time, as per the Russian president’s recent allusion. 

[gettothestabbing]

Why did we stay for 20 years? As the Afghanistan Papers highlighted, one of the prime reasons this war continued was that ideological feminists and liberals in the defense establishment wanted to continue this crusade. “Fundamental disagreements went unresolved. Some U.S. officials wanted to use the war to turn Afghanistan into a democracy. Others wanted to transform Afghan culture and elevate women’s rights.” That’s why Gen. Mark Milley, quite possibly the most incompetent imbecile in the history of the U.S. armed forces, wept hearing the news of troop pull-out. The war continued because U.S. taxpayer-funded defense turned into a giant NGO at the same time the Taliban was punishing pedophiles and providing basic order in a feudal society. Bureaucrats and NGOs are good at selling a stupid dream and drawing up PowerPoints that were never backed by martial reality. When push came to shove, they failed at organizing and executing a competent pull-out with more than a year and a half of advance notice. There’s a contradiction in liberalism. On one hand, it preaches about egalitarianism and the need for humans to throw away the shackles of hierarchy. But when that collides with the reality of life and nature, things like Afghanistan happen. Afghanistan is notable for a lot of reasons, but the most important among them is that cultures are not equal, and democracy isn’t the natural state of affairs. To shape a feudal culture into a democratic one requires hundreds of years of colonialism and generations of people who are molded and shaped through slow educational and cultural changes. Given that America is a republic and average Americans have a strong republican instinct, and since even educated Americans are not brought up and shaped by the imperial universities as colonial officers, they would need to be on foreign soil to help spread democracy and liberal rights organically. The trouble is, that rarely happens.

Dr. Sumantra Maitra, 3 Myths About Why The Afghanistan Withdrawal Is Such A Disaster

[jerseydeanne]

GREAT READING!

How Prince Harry Turned Into Lena Dunham

Composure and class, stoic fortitude, and a sense of duty are not due to bloodline or money. Some people naturally possess them, and some can attain them through discipline, but most do not.

Hirsch is a proud member of a long lineage of “writers” whose entire worldview and existence is colored by race, like a mirror image of Richard Spencer. She is the…

[ebirmingham20ahsgov]

Blog Post #2: Media Assessment Of Issue

1. Article SACAPS

Conservative: https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/29/bill-de-blasio-merit-racist-wont-allow-nyc-public-schools/ 

Subject: Bill De Blasio ends the merit-based program in public schools and a more in-depth look into affirmative action

Author: Sumantra Maitra

Context: This article was written on August 29, 2019, and is based on education matters in New York.

Audience: This article was created for a more conservative right-winged group.

Perspective: This article is subjective, the author does not agree with the current affirmative action program that looks at race and judges.

Significance: The significance of the article pointing out the seemingly messed-up American education system displayed through the currents news of the education system. I dont know yet if I agree or disagree with it yet.

Neutral: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-08/harvard-beats-claim-it-dumbs-down-law-review-for-race-and-gender 

Subject: Harvard wins a case claiming they illegally use race and gender in selecting students for admissions.

Author: Bob Van Voris

Context: The article was written on August 8, 2019, about a case set in Boston.

Audience: The audience is the general public.

Perspective: The article is objective and only states facts and reports news.

Significance: The significance is the updated news on the case against affirmative action. I still do not have an opinion on the matter.

Liberal: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sat-college-board-adversity-score_n_5cdd8f22e4b09648227ca113  

Subject: Reflecting the new adversity score for college board and what that means for the different races.

Author: Hayley Miller

Context: This article was written on May 8, 2019, and is based on something that affects all students from different parts of America.

Audience: The audience is more liberal but this is mostly for the general public.

Perspective: The article is liberally based but has undertones of being subjective and agreeing with the adversity score

Significance: The significance is that it shows what the adversity score will do for minorities and why it's important.

2. The differences were that each article differentiated on whether being fact-based or opinion-based. And the opinion ones had different perspectives. The similarities were the hesitation almost with affirmative action since it is such a subjective topic when having opinions on it.

3. I haven't found my stance on affirmative action yet but I see both sides of the argument clearly it's just difficult to not be biassed because of my own race.

[facetioussoup]

Tipping Point - Sumantra Maitra and George Beebe on the Failures of Nation Building

Tipping Point – Sumantra Maitra and George Beebe on the Failures of Nation Building

https://rumble.com/embed/vk8drq/?pub=cwkzv

[truck-fump]

Maitra: <b>Trump</b>, 'foreign policy realists' stunned Beltway when noninterventionism brought ...

New Post has been published on https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/maitra-trump-foreign-policy-realists-stunned-beltway-when-noninterventionism-brought-cheers-on-the-right&ct=ga&cd=CAIyGjUzM2UwMTY5ZmFhZTIwMGQ6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNHJhbXHUxKpeU6nP9ejQVIYk3LA_A

Maitra: Trump, 'foreign policy realists' stunned Beltway when noninterventionism brought ...

Sumantra Maitra about the rise of noninterventionism and aversion to “nation-building” on the right-wing of the Republican Party and how President Donald Trump …

[atlanticsentinel]

Who Wants to Live in Hungary?

Who wants to live in Hungary?

Skyline of Budapest, Hungary (Unsplash/Tom Bixler) Hungary is having a moment on the American right. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson broadcasted from the country last week and interviewed Viktor Orbán. Rod Dreher blogged from Hungary for The American Conservative. John O’Sullivan, formerly a speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher, has defended Orbán’s power grabs in National Review. Sumantra Maitra defended…

[nawapon17]

Canadian Military Journal

NATO Enlargement, Russia, and Balance of Threat

by Sumantra Maitra

[sgreffenius]

Sumantra Maitra makes interesting points. One is captured in his article’s title and subtitle: current woke ideology serves us ill in competition with an aggressive adversary like China.

A major difference from the past is apparent. We have had blame-America-first, anti-American thought among American elites for a long time, especially since the 1960s. For sixty years, though, these ideas have had to compete with other arguments and ideologies, including Reagan’s vision of a City on a Hill. Anyone who pointed to anti-Americanism within our borders would receive a quick and easy rebuke: America is one of the few places on earth where such a robust conversation about the nature of our leadership is even possible.

Not so now. At present, woke ideologists emulate China in their attitudes toward people who disagree with them. They want to put them away. That is what cancellation amounts to: put your opponents away. That is exactly the way Chinese authorities manage dissent in their own country. Beijing does not take freedom of thought for granted: it always acts to strengthen its own position - with force. Now U.S. political practice resembles China’s, except we do not throw dissidents into prison yet.

What is clear is that the U.S. has ceded the high moral ground. Having done that, it will have to find new ways to engage with its adversary across the Pacific Ocean. Lectures about moral leadership and a rules-based international order sound empty now, if not insulting. As the Anchorage meeting demonstrates, we cannot routinely trot out boilerplate from previous diplomatic summits. Nor have we begun to think about what ought to replace those bromides and warnings.

If our diplomats need prompts to rethink our means of engagement, here is one suggestion: listen to what your counterparts have to say.

[qingdynastyempiredaily]

The Real Story – OANN 2nd Amendment Attack with Erich Pratt

The Real Story – OANN 2nd Amendment Attack with Erich Pratt

OAN Newsroom UPDATED 7:50 PM PT – Monday, April 12, 2021 Erich Pratt, senior VP for Gun Owners of America, gives us The Real Story on why Joe Biden’s executive order could make 4 million gun owners into felons overnight. MORE NEWS: Tipping Point – Analyzing Escalating Tensions Between Russia And Ukraine With Dr. Sumantra Maitra source…

[darkmaga-returns]

Sumantra Maitra

Nov 13, 2024

“Ithink Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses,” Henry Kissinger said in 2018, in one of his last major profiles in a major newspaper. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident.” 

I was thinking of the quote when I toured New York with my visiting parents a few months back and our taxi driver, an elderly Chinese-American gentleman, was arguing how New York would turn red for the first time in a generation and vote for Trump. When asked about whether he worries about a trade war with China, he argued that, one, it is nothing compared to millions of criminals having free run of the cities of the United States, and two, that a real war with Russia is far worse than a trade war with China. Trump ended up earning 44 percent of total New York votes, with unthinkable swings in the working-class areas of Bronx and Brooklyn. Trump even won a precinct in New York’s Chinatown/Two Bridges neighborhood by 51 to 48 percent. 

Political analysis is a funny job, as given the nature of our trade (and the personal stakes, in my case), it is usually a combination of clearing out your own biases as much as humanly possible in a field that remains, despite many liberal cries, not a science, but an art. But when a man destroys the most common myths of political analysis, then he has to be considered at least close to Kissinger’s idea of a major figure in history. Trump broke every single nugget of political wisdom one might have held dear, including those of his supporters. 

[gettothestabbing]

When there’s no difference between the flavor of tweets about this subject from overpriced ice-cream companies and the largest internet providers, the question of the neutral public sphere becomes irrelevant. In a way, that is a good thing, as there is no neutral public square, and never has been. It’s a quirky myth in a typically American conservative way, which always seemed baffling to Europeans, Indians, Chinese, and Russians—those of older societies more attuned to history. If the rapid censoring from Twitter, Google, and other massive tech monopolies leads to the death of that stupid myth, that is good. Politics is about not just wielding power, but using it. Conservatives, especially American ones, are late to that wisdom. . . . Tech companies can go against Western conservatives because they are not afraid of Western conservatives. They have realized that, due to their ideology and free-market dogma, modern conservatives are impotent about using the state or power. Twitter cannot do that with China or Antifa, because there will be real consequences in terms of their revenue or street violence. In other words, tech companies are afraid of state power in some countries (China, Russia) and not in others (the free-market United States). The principle of power remains the same. As Phillippe Lemoine said, “Twitter banned Trump because it could and that’s all there is to it. At least the Athenians were honest with the Melians before they destroyed them.” The tech companies have chosen their side. The world has noticed. The ramifications will be severe. There is already Chinese and Russian control of their internet. Europe will follow too. Imagine if some nerd tomorrow decides that Boris Johnson is a fascist, or Emmanuel Macron is instigating violence? No wonder China, Russia, the European Union, and India are trying to control their internet. Their sovereignty is in question if tech oligarchs decide who can speak and who cannot. And the Chinese are happy to rub it in that at least in China, the state remains supreme to a bunch of feudal lords arbitrarily deciding rules. . . . The tech-lash censoring of the president and a bunch of conservatives is similar to the king realizing during Magna Carta that it’s the feudal lords who hold real power, not him. It is the duty of historians to add that conservatives have only themselves to blame if they lose the war with the tech neo-feudalists. They had years to break up monopolies. They didn’t. Vae Victis. The coming consequences will be severe.

Sumantra Maitra, The Global Consequences Of The Tech-Lash Will Be Severe

[decadentpiratecollection]

The National Interest (США): оценка мотивов и целей России на Украине с точки зрения реальной политики

The National Interest (США): оценка мотивов и целей России на Украине с точки зрения реальной политики

Сумантра Майтра (Sumantra Maitra)

Чем объясняется поведение России в её бывшей сфере влияния? Сейчас этот вопрос вновь важен, учитывая, что с волнениями столкнулась Белоруссия, а вопрос о вхо��дении Украины и Грузии в НАТО опять вышел на первый план. Реваншизм Москвы обычно объясняется разнообразием внутренних факторов, среди них стабильность режима, клановая коррупция, необходимость…

[collegeeducationnewsllcusa]

Matthew Lau: Should we tax universities for the damage they do?

Links to the breadcrumb trail

FP comment

Many of the processes at many universities are negative rather than positive external effects

Author of the article:

Matthew Lau Politically correct nonsense is rampant in Canadian universities, as evidenced by the Queen’s University naming controversy last year. Photo by Ian MacAlpine / The Whig-Standard / Postmedia Network

Article content

Many people, especially the left, enthusiastically support carbon taxes. In theory, a carbon tax could make sense, as the English economist Arthur Pigou noted a hundred years ago, if carbon emissions cause material social costs by causing harmful global warming. The words “if” and “could” and “theoretically” do a lot here, and good evidence suggests that carbon taxes are harmful rather than useful; however, the idea of ​​Pigovian taxes on negative externalities is logically sound. And the idea of ​​Pigovian subsidies for activities that generate material social benefits is based on the same consideration.

Problems arise, however, when governments exaggerate the extent of externalities to justify economic interference, or misjudge the direction of the externality and end up subsidizing what they should be taxing, or vice versa. The global warming externality used to justify Pigovian taxes on carbon emissions and Pigovian subsidies on wind and solar power is perhaps the best example of such a government error. But another one that is increasingly suggesting it is massive government subsidies for many university programs.

advertising

This ad hasn’t loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content

Subsidies to post-secondary education are often justified, at least in part, on the grounds that such education enhances culture, promotes civic education, and cultivates better social and political leaders for the benefit of society as a whole. But evidence to the contrary continues to mount. The latest is from Yale University, where a recent psychiatrist gave a talk on “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,” in which she described in glaring detail her fantasies of killing white people. The talk was clearly a form of brain pollution, not a social benefit, and should therefore not be eligible for Pigovian subsidies.

Fortunately, psychiatrists’ insane fantasies are not representative of the average university lecture, yet many of the goings-on at many universities are negative rather than positive. Examples are the enforcement of politically correct ideologies, the imposition of the waking culture, the frequent censorship of nonconforming ideas and the shrill declarations of climate emergencies. Schools “increasingly teach students to become campaigners for social justice rather than broadening their intellectual horizons,” as Professor Francis H. Buckley recently wrote.

Buckley, once a professor at McGill, teaches at the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University in Virginia, where the university’s faculty senate voted five years ago when the law school was renamed after the late Conservative Supreme Court Justice Renamed on the grounds that Scalia allegedly made “numerous publicly abusive comments about various groups – including people of color, women and LGBTQ people”. No examples of offensive remarks were given, however, an uncomfortable fact which, when brought up by a law professor in the faculty’s Senate meeting, interrupted his colleagues and prevented him from speaking further.

advertising

This ad hasn’t loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content

Politically correct nonsense is as prevalent on the Canadian campus as was seen in the Queen’s University naming controversy last year. A university advisory committee spent two months advising people and then released a 65-page report recommending that Sir John A. Macdonald’s name be removed from the law school building. The report quoted people who said the building’s name “perpetuates violence, racism, colonialism and whiteness.” Indigenous, racialized and marginalized groups, according to the report, said this “creates feelings that range from exclusion to trauma”. The word “trauma” or a variation of it was used 13 times in the report. You might conclude that if the name of Canada’s first prime minister causes such widespread trauma, Queens may not be ready for serious intellectual exploration.

Matthew Lau: Ontario’s standard position now is government control

Matthew Lau: The tariff people are everywhere

Matthew Lau: Pope Francis is failing finances

Matthew Lau: Don’t let CEWS CEOs be handcuffed

In an essay published last year by the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal in Raleigh, North Carolina, researchers Joy Pullmann and Sumantra Maitra describe how “the rise of the activist professor at the academy helped create a pattern the redesign of the departments has led to “goals from the search for truth to the engine for socio-political change.” But even where professors are really good teachers and not ideological propagandists, as Thomas Sowell has argued, “the knowledge that a diploma is supposed to represent can, actually only isolated fragments of knowledge about the humanities, natural or social sciences, whatever narrow topics the respective professors of the students wrote in their dissertations, books or scientific journal articles. “

The negative externalities of many university programs are often large and the positive externalities limited, so that Pigovian taxes at universities can be more sensible than Pigovian subsidies. Of course, as with the CO2 tax, the Pigov taxes at universities could go too far. But let’s at least cut the subsidies.

Matthew Lau is a writer from Toronto.

Share this article on your social network

advertising

This ad hasn’t loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In-depth coverage of The Logic’s innovation economy, made available to you in collaboration with the Financial Post.

Top stories from financial items

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from Financial Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

By clicking the registration button, you agree to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of our emails. Postmedia Network Inc. | 365 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3L4 | 416-383-2300

Thanks for registering!

A welcome email is on the way. If you don’t see it, please check your Junk folder.

The next issue of the Financial Post Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.

There was a problem signing in. Please try again

Remarks

Postmedia advocates a lively but civil discussion forum and encourages all readers to share their thoughts on our articles. Comments can take up to an hour to be moderated before they appear on the site. We ask that you keep your comments relevant and respectful. We turned email notifications on – you will now receive an email when you’ve received a reply to your comment, there’s an update on a comment thread you’re following, or when a user follows a comment. Check out our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to customize your email settings.

source https://collegeeducationnewsllc.com/matthew-lau-should-we-tax-universities-for-the-damage-they-do/

[brajeshupadhyay]

Donald Trump is all sound and fury, signifying nothing; he lacks real will to use the power handed to him, says Sumantra Maitra​

Doctoral scholar on neo-realism, researcher and columnist Sumantra Maitra, one of the sharpest conservative voices around, provides freewheeling answers to a few questions from Firstpost on liberalism, United States presidential elections, foreign policy and more. Following are the edited excerpts:

Do you see the culture war amid the poll battle in the US reflecting the larger ideological debate facing liberal democracies?

I do. It was inevitable and predicted by various scholars (Mearsheimer, Kaplan, Huntington, although no one was quite certain about how history will return. Liberalism as a theory is predicated on a worldview which is providential in nature, almost like a religion, a faith in a progressive arc of history; similar to Marxism in that way, which also has its own version of end of history. On one hand liberalism is a universalist idea, on the other hand, it values individual liberty which is particularist and naturally, those two are often in contradiction. It also refuses to acknowledge the concept of power and hierarchy in politics and thinks rational debate is the only way forward.

The theory which talks about diversity so much is intolerant of opposing worldviews. It prefers superficial diversity but is, in reality, an imperial, homogenising force. As we now know, the world is too big for one worldview and history isn’t an arc of progress, but a cycle. The electoral wins of Narendra Modi, Boris Johnson, and Scott Morrison, the return of Turkish imperial ambition, the rise of China, narrow nationalism, and realism in Anglo-American foreign policy, Jair Bolsonaro, Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban are different rebellions against the homogenising universalist impulse.

Do you view Trump as the disruptor or a product of the disruption?

For American domestic politics, both. Ironic that it took a reality TV star to grasp and act on the reality of structural changes already underway. For all his rhetorical flaws, Trump has pushed back against aggressive campus feminism, critical race theory and other subversive forces within the country. That’s more than any true-blue conservative president or prime minister in recent history. He is also correct about the massive geopolitical upheaval that is China’s rise and has realised that the better way to achieve peace in the Middle East is through a balance of power. Refreshingly old school.

In foreign policy, however, it is irrelevant what type of individual Trump is. Structure matters more than an agency in international relations, and structural forces dictate that the US will retrench from Europe and the Middle East in order to focus on Asia. This overarching change will happen regardless, under any upcoming US administration, though the details might vary. US concerns about NATO freeriding, EU’s rise as an economic competitor, China’s rise as a military peer, wasteful wars and nation-building -- these issues predate Trump and will continue after him.

What’s your take on Joe Biden’s foreign policy that has been described as restorative? Do you see any change in policy towards India in a Biden White House?

Biden, for all his flaws, is comparatively decent on foreign policy. He is fundamentally a risk-averse man. He opposed the strike on Osama bin Laden, gave a cautious statement about the strike on Qasem Soleimani, as well as opposed interventions in Libya and Syria, and has a disdain for Gulf states promoting jihadists. That indicates how he thinks and decides. He also wants a return to a status quo in Europe. His China hawkery sounds shallow. Biden is not a hawk. That said, he will be mostly influenced by aides and cabinet, so that’s something to observe.

India will be courted by the US as a counter-balance to China, and that broader strategy will not change. But India may face more criticism about domestic politics from a Biden administration than it would from a Trump return. The Biden team (Kamala Harris and others) are ideological about promoting liberalism abroad, something which Trump’s team isn’t. So, India should expect more push on domestic reforms, human rights, etc., which might strain ties a bit. But overall, the grand strategy won’t change. The US needs local powers to balance China, and India is a major regional power, middle-class market, as well as a potential supply-chain base. Those simple facts determine policy. How smartly India plays it, is up to Indian policymakers. If I were to suggest a course forward, then I’d refer back to the golden rules of a realist great power grand strategy. Have a strong economy at any cost; maintain equidistance and hedge between various great powers and avoid costly long wars; and build a large, massive navy.

Is the obsession with Russia in US political discourse justified, or does it miss acknowledging the centrality and enormity of the geopolitical, geoeconomic and ideological threat posed by China?

It is not justified at all, but understandable given how partisan and ideological US politics is. China is the only overwhelming great power threat to the US; much, much larger than even USSR, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan ever was. But there are three factors which determine American policy towards Russia.

One, the smaller East European states, who try to bog down Americans for providing security in Europe, when they should demand more from Germany and France. Consider the Baltic states hyperventilating about Belarus, a country that is peripheral to American grand strategy.

Two, domestic politics. Russia is the Pakistan of the US, the original and perpetual adversary. Regardless of how weak it gets, every small act will result in a hysteria, which is mostly cynical and political. Russia is an adversary, sure, capable of mischief, but not an existential threat. It’s a key difference. Law of international politics states that increased threat perception determines military rearmament. Russia has a demographic decline, no discernible soft power, second-rate technology, a mono-industrial economic base and a GDP smaller than Italy and California. Russians are bleeding dry in Syria and Ukraine, and if anyone studies Russian military journals, they’d know that Russia has no capability or will to go on conquest mode or quell an insurgency if it tries to conquer Ukraine or Georgia. It simply is not capable.

Three, there are liberal hawks in Washington who have made a career out of promoting a particular version of liberal democracy in Europe. They are the ones pushing Russia hysteria. If Biden wins, nothing will change much about actual policies concerning Russia, but we will see lofty rhetoric about how devastating Russian revanchism is in Belarus, Ukraine, Syria, and Georgia.

To what extent do you think a surge of violence in US cities will be a poll issue? Will Democrats be affected for failing to oppose looting and violence, or has Biden been able to sidestep that trap?

That’s a million-dollar question and any foreign policy wonk should be careful not to give a deterministic answer. Anarchy is worse than tyranny, and the constant lawlessness usually leads the middle class to vote right-wing. That said, there are two complicating factors. Trump is not a normal president like Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. He is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. He lacks the real will to use the power handed to him. There’s a lot that could be done, from intelligence, crackdown, economic punishment on anarchist cities, etc.

Instead, Trump is tweeting and biding his time hoping the voters would vote for him. It’s a gamble. The voters might find him craven and spineless when a challenge finally came. Second, American media is overwhelmingly liberal to the point that it is capable of simply hiding the reality. The major outlets are all in on a liberal restoration. How that affects the election remains to be seen.

Sumantra Maitra is a doctoral scholar at the University of Nottingham, UK, and a senior contributor to The Federalist, columnist for The National Interest, War on the Rocks, The Spectator and Quillette Magazine, and a non-resident fellow at the James G Martin Center, US.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/3m9EpVl

[facetioussoup]

Tipping Point - Sumantra Maitra on Afghanistan and Forever Wars

Tipping Point – Sumantra Maitra on Afghanistan and Forever Wars

https://rumble.com/embed/vj5so8/?pub=cwkzv