#USA nuclear war Russia Ukraine NATO Trump | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

xtruss · 6 months ago

Text

“United States And The Illegal Regime of Isra-hell’s Cancerous Scrotums Licker, Hegemonic, Hypocrite, Genocidal And War Criminal Europe” Is Quietly Debating A Nuclear ☢️ Future Without The US

America has Protected Europe with is Nuclear Umbrella for More Than 70 Years. In the Era of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, the Continent is Quietly Debating a Different Nuclear Future.

— By Laura Kayali, Thorsten Jungholt and Philipp Fritz | July 04, 2024

Illustration By Giulio Bonasera For Politico

In a Castle Near Stockholm, standing on a blue-curtained podium that hid the room’s gilt mirrors and sparkling chandeliers, French President Emmanuel Macron ripped open a debate that Europe had been avoiding not just for years but for decades. 

Macron had chosen the time and place carefully; he was on a state visit to Sweden, one of the long-neutral European countries who decided in 2022 to join NATO in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. He was sharing the stage with Sweden’s king and prime minister, and faced an audience of Swedish military cadets and officers who were recalibrating their mission and ideas about their country’s, and the continent’s, security. It was the last week of January, and Sweden’s final ratification as a NATO member was just weeks away. And he spoke in English, to make sure people outside of France and Sweden paid attention. 

During the Cold War, Macron noted, “all the treaties were decided by the former USSR and USA. Everything that covered our territory was decided by the big guys in the room, not by the Europeans themselves.” Going forward, he said, looking around the audience to make sure his point was getting across, in the area of arms control, troop deployments and the entirety of Europe’s security architecture, that needs to change. “We have to be the one to decide,” Macron said.

French President Emmanuel Macron (left) and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson (right) discuss defense concerns at a joint press conference. Sweden applied to join NATO following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images

The room of military officers was quiet. Macron hadn’t used the word “nuclear,” but he didn’t have to. A Swedish officer stood up and asked if France, as “the only EU country with an independent nuclear force,” had a “special responsibility” to protect the security of the continent’s northernmost region, the Arctic sea passage. In other words, was France prepared to use its nuclear weapons if Scandinavian countries were threatened from the north, presumably from Russia’s bases in the Arctic. 

“Definitely yes,” Macron responded without hesitation, as if he anticipated the question. “Part of our vital interest has a European dimension, which gives us a special responsibility, given precisely what we have and the deterrence capacity we have,” he added. 

Ever since the advent of nuclear arms, Europe has been protected by an American nuclear umbrella. It was the United States that promised NATO allies that any nuclear aggression by the Soviet Union, and later, by Russia, would be answered with a barrage of U.S. missiles. 

For seven decades, this arrangement allowed Western Europe to focus on recovering from the devastation of the 20th century’s two world wars instead of developing costly nuclear capabilities. Only France and the U.K. developed small national arsenals, and they were just a fraction the size of those controlled by the Cold War superpowers.

But now, some European countries have begun to question whether that nuclear status quo will hold much longer. Nuclear calculations in Europe have been shifted by two developments, one external to NATO, and one internal. 

First, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine revealed that Moscow has grown eager to expand its empire by use of force. In the last three years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly engaged in nuclear saber-rattling to get his way. In recent months, he has conducted military exercises together with Belarus that include the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which has heightened anxiety in Europe, particularly in those countries bordering Ukraine or Russia. 

After his election in 2016, former U.S. President Donald Trump changed the United States’ posture toward NATO, saying that the United States might come to the aid of only those countries that pay their fair share for defense spending. | Win McNamee/Getty Images; Leonid Shcheglov/AFP via Getty Images

Second, after his election in 2016, former U.S. President Donald Trump changed the United States’ posture toward NATO, taking a far more transactional approach to the alliance by saying that the United States might come to the aid of only those countries that pay their fair share for defense spending. And just days after Macron’s speech in Sweden, as if on cue, Trump made that threat explicit, telling a rally of supporters in South Carolina that he’d already informed the president of an unnamed European country that the U.S. would not protect them from a Russia attack if they were in arrears. 

“‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’” Trump recounted. ‘“No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.”

With the strong possibility that Trump could be reelected in November, European officials have reluctantly — and quietly — begun to debate whether Europe should do something that’s been unthinkable for most of NATO’s existence: develop a security architecture that’s not so dependent on the United States, including for nuclear deterrence. 

In the months since Macron’s speech, officials from a variety of European nations have been reaching out to their French counterparts, seeking more information about what France’s head of state has in mind, according to six people with first-hand knowledge of the conversations. These talks have been held largely behind closed doors among ministry officials and experts and they are mostly bilateral — not being held within EU institutions or NATO — and haven’t yet reached higher-level diplomatic engagements. 

For the most part, the conversations are focused on clarifying Macron’s idea. How does France’s nuclear deterrent, which is not part of NATO’s security architecture, actually work? Would Paris share nuclear decision making? Does France have enough nuclear weapons to effectively deter Russia? Would Macron really stand by Germany and other European partners with nuclear weapons in a crisis? Is Paris trying to replace Washington or become a second layer of nuclear insurance? Would the United Kingdom, Europe’s other nuclear power, be involved? 

While many NATO countries share Macron’s concerns about Russia and the direction of American politics, there is also a lot of skepticism about what Paris actually has to offer. 

What’s more, key countries including Germany and Poland do not in any way want to give the impression to Washington that they’re pushing America away to make way for Paris. Just talking about the problem, they fear, could be a self-fulfilling prophecy in a second Trump term. Especially now that France, a country historically wary of investing too much in the transatlantic relationship, could see the EU-skeptic, NATO-skeptic far-right National Rally party led by Marine Le Pen gain power. Do NATO allies really want to lean less on a Trump-led America but more on a Le Pen-led France?

“There is a fear among several NATO member states that the Americans might turn away in frustration if Macron were to go on the offensive at some point with his ideas on nuclear deterrence,” said a former NATO official who spent years in senior positions dealing with strategic issues and hybrid threats, and who, like others quoted in this story, was granted anonymity to talk about sensitive matters. 

Camille Grand, a former NATO assistant secretary-general who’s now a distinguished fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, says the debate is proceeding cautiously and quietly to prevent weakening the American deterrent or pretend Europe has the same nuclear firepower as America. But it’s happening, and it has implications that raise questions for the U.K., the U.S. and the European countries where American nukes are stationed. 

“A conversation is opening up because nuclear power has regained a place in Europe’s security that, though perhaps less central than during the Cold War, is more important than what anyone could have imagined in the past 20 years,” Grand said. 

Thinking the Unthinkable

The speech in Sweden wasn’t the first time Macron had raised the idea of France using its nuclear arsenal to help protect Europe. He had floated the concept first in February 2020, in remarks to French military officers, but perhaps because he was speaking in French to a French audience, no one else really paid attention. 

Besides, it was a different world back then. Most of Europe’s attention was focused on the looming Covid pandemic. Putin hadn’t yet launched his massive invasion of Ukraine and European leaders were starting to hope that NATO-skeptic Trump was on his way out as president. Macron’s proposal, which included the participation of European armed forces in French nuclear deterrence exercises, went unheeded. 

During the Cold War, Europe was terrified by the possibility of nuclear war. But once the Cold War ended more than 30 years ago, the specter of nuclear war receded. Sure, France and the U.K. still had their arsenals, but they were increasingly seen as an obsolete weapon of a bygone era. 

That all changed because of the conflict in Ukraine. Even as he launched his full-scale invasion, Putin played the nuclear card, reminding the West that Russia was a powerful nuclear state and warning of “ominous consequences” if the West came to Ukraine’s aid.

In the last three years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly engaged in nuclear saber-rattling to get his way. | Alexei Babushkin/AFP via Getty Images

“It’s not surprising that our closest allies are increasingly concerned about the different nuclear threats they’re seeing from Russia,” a senior Biden administration official said in an interview, speaking on condition that they not be identified by name. 

This renewed nuclear threat comes as many of the guardrails put in place by decades of arms control agreements are being dismantled. One of the last ones remaining, the New Start treaty, which imposes limits on deployed long-range nuclear weapons, expires in 2026 and Putin announced last year that Moscow would no longer participate. And Putin’s nuclear threats have only grown in recent months; in June, for the second time in a matter of weeks, Russia and Belarus conducted joint exercises on the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. Putin’s recent visit to nuclear-armed North Korea, long seen as an unstable and belligerent rogue state, did little to calm jitters in Europe and North America. 

“You cannot pretend that nothing has changed,” said Robert Pszczel, former Polish diplomat and former NATO official who was posted in Moscow, slamming “nuclear blackmailing by Russia.” “The environment is no longer benign, but actually hostile.”

Against this backdrop, some European countries have been modernizing their aircraft fleets, upgrading the warplanes they use to deliver American nuclear missiles stationed on allies’ territory as part of NATO’s “nuclear sharing” program. Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium are part of the program, and Poland has been eager to join. 

Recently, Trump has been downplaying his threat to pull back from NATO, saying that he’ll keep the United States in NATO “100 percent.” But every time, he is still quick to add conditions on U.S. participation, including that allies keep up defense spending and “play fair.”

Both European and U.S. experts say it’s unlikely a Trump administration would decide to physically take out the nukes stationed in Europe. But nuclear deterrence depends on political credibility, and there’s an unspoken fear in Europe that Trump would be less willing to come to the aid of European allies than his predecessors. Would Putin be so confident that Trump would be willing to risk a nuclear war to save Estonia? 

“The French and the British are going to have to think about their nuclear posture if Trump is elected and if he makes good on his threat to disengage from NATO,” said Daniel Fried, a former U.S. ambassador to Poland.

“It’s the first time since the 1960s that European countries have to question the American umbrella,” he added. 

Macron’s ambitions for France’s nuclear deterrent haven’t exactly been a hit with his constituents, with far-right and far-left parties accusing him of selling out France’s sovereignty to the Europeans. But that hasn’t stopped him from continuing to promote the idea, mentioning it three more times in just the last few months.

Recently, Macron's nuclear deterrent ambitions have prompted France’s far-right and far-left parties to accuse him of selling out France’s sovereignty to the Europeans. | Lewis Joly/AP | Top

Macron (center) attends the official launch ceremony of a French nuclear submarine. France has about 290 warheads. In comparison, the U.S. has more than 5,000 nukes and Russia 5,580. | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images | Bottom

Macron hasn’t provided many specifics about how exactly this arsenal would cover Europe, but has made clear that France would remain fully in charge: “It’s the President of the Republic as head of the armed forces who defines the engagement of this nuclear force in all its components and who defines France’s vital interests,” he told The Economist. “It’s not a question of changing that.” 

The U.K., a participant in the Manhattan Project during World War II alongside the United States and Canada, became the third country with a nuclear arsenal in 1952, after the U.S. and the Soviet Union. France started its nuclear program in 1954 and, in the early 1960s, former French President Charles de Gaulle decided to go all the way and develop an atomic bomb — at the time, the rationale behind having nukes was already to become more independent from Washington. (France left NATO’s military structure in 1966 and didn’t rejoin until 2009.)

At present, the U.K. has about 225 warheads, which it partially contributes to NATO defense. That number is expected to grow in the coming years after the U.K. government decided in 2021 to raise the cap to 260 warheads. London is part of NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) but only the U.K. prime minister can authorize the use of nuclear weapons, even if they’re deployed in the context of a NATO response. 

For its part, France has about 290 warheads, but is not a member of the NPG. In comparison, the U.S. has more than 5,000 nukes and Russia 5,580, according to a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 

At all times, London and Paris each have at least one nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine patrolling the seas. A few days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Paris deployed three (out of four) submarines at the same time — an unprecedented level of alert. 

However, unlike the U.K., France’s arsenal is also airborne, with two Rafale fighter jet squadrons equipped with long-range missiles. They can take off either from French territory or from the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.

What Macron’s proposal would mean in practice is way too early to assess. One option, that he suggested back in 2020, is for European allies to begin to participate in France’s own nuclear exercises — as did one Italian air tanker in 2022.  

“The Baltic and Nordic countries are trying to understand better. They’re asking questions. We’re not yet in a truly public debate, we’re at the start of the conversation,” said Grand, the former NATO assistant secretary-general. 

According to a French lawmaker, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the current political situation in France, German lawmakers from the Bundestag’s defense committee asked questions about how the French nuclear deterrent works during a joint meeting with French MPs in Berlin in late January. The French National Assembly’s defense committee mulled inviting them to France to provide more information. Macron’s decision to call a snap parliamentary election — whose second round is set to take place Sunday — put those plans on the backburner. 

“The first step before talking about it too much is to inform our partners about what French deterrence actually is, there’s a lack of understanding of what French deterrence is,” said another French lawmaker working on defense issues, “on our side, we need to be more transparent and explain our doctrine.” 

Macron on the deck of a French amphibious helicopter carrier. At all times, London and Paris each have at least one nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine patrolling the seas. | Sipa via AP | Top

Poland's President Andrzej Duda (center), Macron (left) and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (right) prepare for a photo at the 2023 NATO Summit. Duda said on several occasions that he would like Poland to be included in the U.S.-led nuclear sharing program. | Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images | Bottom

France has had to dispel two misunderstandings, said Bruno Tertrais, deputy director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, who advised Macron on diplomatic and military policy during his first presidential campaign in 2017. One is that France is considering the involvement of EU institutions, giving the bloc’s 26 other heads of state and government power over the French nuclear deterrent.

“Macron always talks about Europe and not the EU. London is not part of the EU,” Tertrais explained. “Paris is not seeking to have its nuclear effort financed by other countries either.” 

France also has to work against its reputation as a country wary of having too close ties to the U.S. Besides, Paris is also sometimes suspected of seeking to replace Washington as Europe’s security guardian. 

“The French are not contemplating a nuclear deterrent without the Americans,” explained Héloïse Fayet, a researcher at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris, adding that even if London and Paris joined forces, they wouldn’t have the same deterrent potential as Washington. 

“France is offering additional life insurance in case there are any doubts about the Americans,” she added. 

A way for Paris to prove it’s not trying to replace the American nuclear umbrella but rather strengthen it would be for France to become a member of NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group and discuss those matters in a forum that includes all allies, including the United States, several officials said. 

“This would be a first signal that they feel responsible not only for the nuclear protection of their own country, but for Europe as a whole,” said a top diplomat from an Eastern European country. 

Russia Rising

It’s fair to say that quite a few European countries think that by reopening the debate over its nuclear umbrella, Europe has far more to lose than to gain. Chief among them is Germany, which has a history of saying no thank you to nuclear pushes from French presidents. 

Back in 2007, then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested to then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel his country should share its nuclear weapons with Germany. The proposal was met with a mix of bewilderment and annoyance in Berlin — a capital where, in part because of Germany’s history of 20th-century militarism, the idea of possessing nuclear weapons has long been taboo. 

That’s a central reason that Germany, despite being Europe’s largest country and most powerful economy, doesn’t have — or want — its own nuclear arsenal. When then-West Germany negotiated to join the Western European Union in the early 1950s, one of the conditions was a ban on acquiring weapons of mass destruction. 

However, West Germany eventually became part of the U.S.-led nuclear sharing program in NATO and Germany currently has an estimated 20 American tactical nuclear bombs stationed at the Büchel airbase in Rhineland-Palatinate. Washington retains control over the weapons’ use, but German Tornado bombers — meant to be replaced by American-made F-35s in the coming years — can carry them if needed. 

Before the war in Ukraine, having U.S. nuclear weapons on German soil wasn’t unanimously backed by Germany’s political factions. In 2021, when German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’ Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) — known as the “traffic light coalition” — agreed to work together to form a government, NATO allies feared they would withdraw from the military alliance’s nuclear sharing. Eventually, they didn’t. 

Putin’s nuclear threats have only grown in recent months; in June, for the second time in a matter of weeks, Russia and Belarus conducted joint exercises on the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. | Pool photo by Dmitry Astakhov; The Kremlin Moscow via AP

But the mood changed significantly after Putin sent his troops toward Kyiv. In late February 2022, Scholz announced that Germany would be upgrading its nuclear-capable warplanes. But for now, the German government doesn’t seem to be willing to go further than modernizing existing infrastructure much less think (at least out loud) of a world where America’s involvement in Europe’s security is scaled back.  

“The Germans really, really, really don’t want [to think about] the consequences [of a Trump presidency] because then, the question is whether they should have their own nuclear deterrent. And they don’t want to have this conversation,” said Fried, the former U.S. ambassador to Poland. “Their position is more difficult than the French and Brits.” 

After Trump threatened to let Russia do “whatever the hell they want” with countries who don’t pay up, a debate did emerge in Germany about whether they should look to the U.K. and France for extra protection, or even move toward an EU-led nuclear deterrent. Finance Minister Christian Lindner suggested a strategic dialogue with both Paris and London to explore “collective security.”  

Still, the German Chancellery considers France’s repeated calls for a European nuclear umbrella illusory for both political and technical reasons. 

The political reservations have to do with France’s unstable domestic politics. In a matter of days, the French government could be headed by the far-right National Rally, a party with historic ties to Russia that looks at Germany with suspicion. Its leader, Le Pen, wants to enshrine in the French Constitution that France’s nuclear capabilities are for France only. She is also the front-runner for the 2027 presidential election, when Macron himself won’t be able to run for office again because of the French Constitution’s term limits. 

“Since 2020, I’ve been hearing the same argument very often in Berlin: Why put all our eggs in the European basket if tomorrow France is run by Marine Le Pen?” said Gesine Weber, a Fulbright visiting researcher at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. 

Besides, Berlin is also very keen to keep the United States interested in Europe’s security: Some German officials don’t want to give Washington the impression the U.S. is not needed in Europe. “They are starting to think about the Trump scenario, but for them, France is not an alternative to cooperation with the U.S.,” Weber said. 

On the technical level, the German Chancellery points to the enormous costs of beefing up Europe’s nuclear deterrence at a time that many countries are still struggling to meet NATO’s existing spending targets. What’s more, building capabilities would also take a very long time —  “25 to 30 years,” according to a senior NATO official. 

Still, despite Germany’s official reluctance, the future of Europe’s nuclear deterrence is being debated inside a few security policy think tanks, university faculties and specialist conferences in Germany — including last month when the German Society for Security Policy hosted a discussion on the role of nuclear weapons in European security.

At least a few security experts think Macron’s idea merits discussion. Retired Lieutenant General Heinrich Brauss, NATO’s assistant secretary general for Defense Policy and Force Planning from 2013 to 2018, has proposed “a review and adjustment of NATO’s current nuclear posture in Europe” toward an expanded European nuclear posture but with Europeans bearing the largest share of the costs. “This would change the burden-sharing formula in the alliance in favor of the Americans, which would counter the free-rider argument of Trump and his supporters,” Brauss said.

Russia Rising

The need to come to terms with the changing nuclear landscape may be felt most keenly by those countries — many of them newer members of the NATO alliance — located geographically closer to Russia. 

Until recently, the largest and most vocal was Poland, a country that shares borders with Ukraine, Belarus and Russia’s heavily militarized enclave of Kaliningrad. For Poland and the Baltic states, the most immediate concern remains the threat of conventional and hybrid warfare, but the conversation around nuclear deterrence has changed since the war in Ukraine started. In Warsaw, there’s been a push to be more involved in the continent’s nuclear deterrence framework — but with the Americans, not the French. 

On several occasions, Poland President Andrzej Duda publicly said he would like his country to be included in the U.S.-led nuclear sharing program. But according to the NATO-Russia Founding Act signed by the alliance and Russia in 1997, NATO pledged it has “no intention, no plan and no reason” to station nuclear weapons on the soil of the newest alliance members, which includes Poland.   

However, Duda’s security advisor, Jacek Siewiera, suggested last year a way around the text’s limitations. The deployment or relocation of American nuclear bombs to Polish territory is only “one element” of the program — hinting that Poland’s pitch is to participate in nuclear sharing without asking for the actual transfer of U.S. nuclear weapons to Polish soil. For example, Poland’s U.S.-made F-35 stealth bombers could be certified for carrying nuclear missiles and Polish pilots would train for that mission without actually putting the weapons on Polish soil. 

“In the future, Poland could participate in the nuclear sharing program, initially with certain elements such as participation in exercises or the use of our other capabilities,“ said Paweł Kowal, chairman of the Polish parliament’s foreign affairs committee and government representative for Ukraine. 

Poland’s new conservative Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who came to power in December 2023, has so far kept a low profile on the issue. 

“The new government is very reluctant to express this wish publicly,” according to a European diplomat with first-hand knowledge of the matter. “Nuclear sharing is first and foremost linked to the elections in the U.S., so Poland has to wait like many other countries to see who’s in [the U.S.] government.” 

So far, signs coming from Washington are not very encouraging, according to Polish officials. 

Talks took place between Warsaw and the current U.S. administration last year on Poland’s suggestion to participate in the U.S. nuclear sharing program, but there’s little appetite on the American side to risk an escalation spiral with Moscow, Polish officials said. 

And actually stationing U.S. nuclear weapons in Poland seems out of the question. 

“So far, the United States has resisted that because it would be very provocative, and frankly, not very militarily meaningful to do that. It’d be more symbolic, but it’d be really provocative too,” said Lynn Rusten, vice president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s Global Nuclear Policy Program and former Obama administration senior director for arms control and nonproliferation on the National Security Council. 

What’s more, nobody in Warsaw wants to give the impression they are questioning American protection. All the more so as Poland — NATO’s leader in defense spending as a percentage of GDP — is likely to get on Trump’s good side if he’s reelected. In private conversations with Polish diplomats, politicians and experts, they said time and again that they believe Trump can be reckoned with. 

Other countries closer to Russia also don’t want to spook Washington. Romania, like Poland, views Moscow as the primary threat and the U.S. as its “number one security guarantee,” according to Iulia-Sabina Joja, director of the Middle East Institute’s Black Sea Program. It also shares the longest border with Ukraine among alliance members.

Sweden, NATO’s newest member, also has no plan to challenge the transatlantic relationship, at least publicly. “Obviously we see the ominous signs extrapolating on Trump’s rhetoric,” said Jakob Hallgren, the director of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. “But the appetite is limited in talking about alternative scenarios in one way or another that don’t include a very strong relation with the U.S.” 

However, Sweden’s conversation about nuclear deterrence did change after the war in Ukraine started — in yet another sign that the continent is facing a new reality. Not only did Stockholm seek to join NATO, but the Nordic country also signed last year a Defense Cooperation Agreement with Washington that was ratified by the Parliament in June and “doesn’t close the door” to the deployment of nuclear weapons on its soil. 

“That’s a huge cultural change for Sweden,” according to Hallgren. 

High-Stakes Elections

At least for now, the future of Europe’s conversation on nuclear deterrence depends on several high-stakes elections. Citizens from NATO’s three nuclear powers — the United States, the United Kingdom and France — are all going to the polls this year and NATO- and Euro-skeptics could soon be wielding power in both Paris and Washington.

That’s one reason why the topic is unlikely to be aired openly during the gathering of NATO leaders that will take place in Washington from July 9 to 11. “I do not expect European nuclear defense to be much of a topic at the summit,” one European diplomat said, “rather NATO will again affirm its deterrence and defense.”

But there’s little doubt that concerns about the future of Europe’s nuclear umbrella will be discussed at least on the sidelines. While some believe a Trump presidency wouldn’t change Washington’s involvement in Europe, others argue it’s risky to base policy on this assumption. “A lot can be said about Trump, but he’s deeply anti-European,” said Weber of Columbia University. “I wouldn’t trust the scenario that he maintains the umbrella over Europe.” 

Another major question mark is about France, the very country that started the conversation in the first place. Should the far-right National Rally party win the snap parliamentary election on Sunday or the presidential one in 2027, the French push to Europeanize France’s nuclear deterrent will abruptly stop. Le Pen has repeatedly criticized Macron’s push to include European partners in a conversation about French nukes — and there is little doubt she would make clear early on that the French nuclear deterrent is for a national purpose only.

“Our partners are also skeptical about our offers of protection and dialogue on a European defense that include deterrence because of the very strong political uncertainties in our country,” said Yannick Pincé, a nuclear historian and associate researcher at the Interdisciplinary Center for Strategic Issues. “If the National Rally comes to power, France will turn in on itself.”

And finally, there’s the fact that it’s still not clear just what Trump might do vis-a-vis Europe in a second term. Rose Gottemoeller, who served as deputy secretary general of NATO during the Trump administration and is now at Stanford University, said that although Trump has had his differences with the alliance, that doesn’t mean he’ll abandon the nuclear umbrella Europe has relied on since World War II. 

A Marine carries the Nuclear Football at the U.S. ambassador's residence in London. Citizens from NATO’s three nuclear powers — the U.S., the U.K. and France — are all going to the polls in the coming months. | Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

“Why would he want to weaken his nuclear deterrence capability and capacity anywhere in the world? He’s the president with the biggest button, right?” Gottemoeller said. “So even though people are worried about somehow the extended deterrent going away in Europe, I just don’t see it happening because of the politics and the character, personality of Donald Trump himself.”

The bottom line, she said, is that for as much as the continent has lived under the American nuclear umbrella for seven decades, Europe has never been 100-percent sure that any American president would actually push that button if Europe needed it. 

“From the very inception of the extended nuclear deterrent, way back when, questions have been raised whether the United States would actually pull the trigger,” she said. “The line always was, ‘Would the United States trade Paris and Berlin for New York?’”

Europe still doesn’t know the answer to that question. 

#Nuclear ☢️ Weapons #Donald J. Trump #Donald J. Trump 2024 #France 🇫🇷#United States 🇺🇸#War Room #Emmanuel Macron #Europe #Debates #Future Without United States 🇺🇸#Nuclear ☢️ Umbrella ☂️#Russian 🇷🇺 President | Vladimir Putin #Continent of Europe #Laura Kayali | Thorsten Jungholt | Philipp Fritz #Belarus 🇧🇾

0 notes

the-psudo · 3 years ago

Text

First Draft: Russia, Ukraine, and Rumors of War

What's happening with Russia and Crimea?

Short answer: Putin wants everyone scared enough to do whatever he asks.

The long answer comes in 5 parts:

Russia

Crimea

Ukraine

Germany & the United States

Putin

RUSSIA

A few cultural traits or principles have remained true in Russia for centuries, regardless of changes to its form of government:

They believe they are the rightful heirs of Ancient Rome. Rome conquered the Mediterranean by finding paranoid reasons to believe that neighboring countries were about to attack, and then preemptively but defensively attacked them first, thereby conquering the world defensively.

Russia believes it is their moral obligation to protect ethnically Russian populations anywhere in the world, and especailly in neighboring countries. (This is often their reason for their preemptive defensive wars.)

They don't trust a united Europe, like the EU and NATO represent today. They genuinely think a united Europe will inevitably invade them and fight deep into Russian territory before eventually being destroyed by Russian winters. Like how Napoleon did after the French Revolution, and like the Austro-German Alliance did in World War 1, and like Hitler did in World War 2. The USA even invaded Russia during its Bolshevik Revolution. Nuclear weapons and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction are probably why that pattern stopped since then, but Russia hasn't forgiven or forgotten.

In addition to that, there are some current, modern factors that affect how its national character expresses itself.

Russia still has about 45% of the world's supply of nuclear weapons (4,000 or so), and they're old and in bad repair. It would be almost convenient to use some of them, but it might expose that most of them don't work anymore and in their view that'd be tantamount to suicide to expose that weakness. They almost certainly won't use their nukes, but 99% certainty isn't comforting.

Russia's economy is heavily dependent on the export of fuels and energy products these days (63% of total exports, with crude oil and natural gas accounting for 43 of those percentage points).

Putin's political agenda has two points: 1) to restore Russian power, and 2) to convince the Russian people that all democracies are pretty authoritarian and corrupt, so they shouldn't bother to complain about Russia's corrupt authoritarianism.

That's Russia today.

CRIMEA

Crimea is a peninsula sticking south out of Ukraine into the Black Sea the way Florida sticks south into the Caribbean.

Russia (under the Tsar) first conquered the Crimean Khanate in 1783, ran it as a Russian province for centuries, then (as the Soviet Union) added it to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1921. Ukraine declared independence in 1991, taking advantage of Soviet weakness during an attempted coup d'etat in Moscow. When Ukraine elected corrupt oligarch billionaire and pro-NATO President Petro Poroshenko, replacing corrupt pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, Putin took decisive action to keep Ukraine out of NATO and the EU. He declared Poroshenko's government to be a modern Nazi party, a theory based on delusions and string, and sent Russian troops disguised as pro-Russian locals to hold a popular referendum on whether Crimeans wanted to join Russia or get shot where they stood. 96.77% of respondents voted to join Russia (local community activists put the real number at about 20%), and the international community labeled the entire Crimea adventure "the Russian annexation of Crimea." Russia disputes this characterization the way Trump denies the 2020 US election results.

Torture and other human rights abuses of hundreds have characterized the Russian occupation of Crimea, but most Crimeans keep their head down and Russia treats that compliant set like citizens with rights. Selective application of human rights is one of the hallmarks of tyranny.

Russia also invaded eastern Ukraine, justifying themselves with the argument that the far east was mostly Russian, mostly pro-Moscow, and the imaginary Nazis just elected would otherwise have killed them off. Poroshenko, bloated plutocrat that he was, still managed to arrange an impressively effective resistance to Russian aggression in the east, but that took all his forces. All he could do about Crimea was dam up the North Crimean Canal that supplies Crimea most of their drinking water. Crimea's agriculture was destroyed, and the population is chronically short of drinking water. Russia spent a ton of money trying to build wells and things, but it's not really working.

Putin has to get Ukraine to open up that canal.

UKRAINE

Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe, similar to how the Great Plains states feed America. Ukraine and Russia have been parts of the same country a lot in recent centuries, and citizens of both countries tend to have a lot of family in the other and a lot of mutual loyalty. War between them is a war between brothers.

In the mid-1600s, a war against Poland was going poorly, so Ukraine called in Russian help. They ended up split between Poland and Russia, with the exact border bouncing around for a few centuries but favoring Russia. They also oscillated between relative independence and heavy-handed rule by Russia. Ukrainians fought on both sides of World War 1, but about 14 times as many on the Russian side. Ukraine was one of the founding members of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1921, and the centralized management of agriculture quickly led to widespread crop failures in Ukraine and tens of millions of people starving to death across the Soviet Union. In 2010, the Ukrainian Parliament declared this mass starvation to be a genocide, but scholars are divided on whether that's technically true.

When World War 2 came around, Russia's alliance with the Nazis included uniting the Polish part of Ukraine with the Russian part for the first time. But when the Nazis (predictably) betrayed their alliance with the Russians, much of the fighting took place in Ukraine, including the famous resistance of the Battle of Kyiv (or Kiev). Caught between two dictatorships, about 6 million Ukrainians died, about 40% of the USSR's total causalities. After the war, the Soviet Union invested heavily into Ukraine, and it quickly developed into a major European industrial center, and many leading Soviet citizens came from Ukraine.

Ukraine developed a major energy and energy transportation sector, made infamous by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, killing 56 people directly and an estimated 4,000 due to increased cancer rates. Mostly safe today, the site has become somewhat of a tourist attraction.

A unity and independence movement arose in 1990, and when an attempted coup distracted Moscow in 1991, Ukraine declared its independence. Ukraine voluntarily gave up their nuclear arsenal, the 3rd largest in the world, and ceased to be a nuclear power in exchange for security assurances. The collapse of the Soviet Union hit all of the component republics with a severe economic disaster as the economy adjusted from centralization to something more like crony capitalism, with Ukraine hit with a deeper economic depression than most. After a particularly corrupt election in 2004, the people arose in the peaceful Orange Revolution seeking freer elections and spreading the economic benefits of the energy industry away from the oligarchs and toward social safety nets and infrastructure projects. When President Viktor Yanukovych reversed national policy, pushing away from Europe and toward Russia, another wave of anti-corruption and anti-Yanukovych protests known as Euromaidan broke out. Yanukovych reacted by banning protests, and the protesters reacted to that by getting violent; 86 died, 100 went missing, and an estimated 15,000 were injured. Yanukovych signed a compromise that included freer elections, and the elections chose pro-NATO President Petro Poroshenko.

Putin accused this populist movement of being as bad as Nazis, and used the imaginary danger to ethnic Russians as an excuse to invade eastern Ukraine and annex Crimea. (Protests gone violent seeking democracy and justice portrayed as rising tyranny... why does that rhetoric sound familiar? Oh, because that's exactly the same rhetoric in the USA about 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. It's almost as if the same sources are telling the same lies in Ukraine and the USA, almost as if Russia is using the same lies in both countries to deepen national disunion.)

Before and after Putin's 2014-6 campaign of hostility in Ukraine, pipelines through Ukraine continued to deliver Russian natural gas to German customers for a transport fee. This was a huge economic benefit to Ukraine, and Russia hoped to evade those charges. To that end, they built the Nord Stream 1 pipeline through the Baltic Sea to Germany (now open) and the Nord Stream 2 to Germany's border (Germany refuses to allow the construction to continue onto their soil, because it gives Russia too much money and power). Natural gas transport through Ukraine has dropped to about a quarter of what it once was, dousing the Ukrainian economy. This pressures Germany to buy Russian natural gas through the Nord Stream pipelines, where more of the money goes to Russia, rather than through Ukraine, where Ukraine gets transportation fees.

In the Ukrainian election of 2019, Poroshenko was beaten by Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his populist, pro-NATO, anti-corruption platform with over 73% of the vote. Zelenskyy represents a move from oligarch-headed crony capitalism towards genuine representative democracy. Though he is praised for his handling of Russian and American meddling in his country (remember Trump's phone call to him?) and for his handling of the COVID pandmeic, his critics generally complain about his not doing enough to shed Ukraine's authoritarian past.

Russia wants to avoid having to pay Ukraine's transport fees when it sells natural gas to Germany, so that Ukraine's economy and international sanctions against Russia will be weakened.

GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES

Germany's entire political system and governing philosophy is based on never again resembling Nazi Germany to even the least degree.

Germany wants to move to 100% renewable sources of electricity, but about a third of their energy comes from natural gas and about 16% from nuclear. They're trying to cut their dependence on these thermal energy sources, while investing tremendously in solar and wind energy. In the meantime, though, they're importing a lot of natural gas from all over. About 10% of their total energy consumption is Russian natural gas specifically. There's far more capacity for Russian natural gas to be imported through Ukraine, but with war and rumor of war blocking the use of Ukraine's pipelines, Germany is actually getting more Russian natural gas through Nord Stream 1 now than through Ukraine.

Then-Prime Minister Angela Merkel encouraged the importation of more Russian natural gas through Nord Stream 1 and 2 as recently as summer of 2021. But her center-right coalition was voted out of office and replaced her with Olaf Scholz of the most left-wing party in the left-wing coalition that formed Germany's new government. He opposes Nord Stream 2, fossil fuels generally, Russia's escalation of tensions in particular, and anything that smacks of war most of all.

Since the fall of the Nazi Party, Germany never wavers on its anti-war stance. To that end, they've refused any hint of willingness to defend Ukraine if Russia attacks and even refuses to let other nations use German-made military equipment to defend Ukraine. The have dragged their feet about Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO and the EU, in hopes of preventing tensions from escalating by preventing Ukraine form joining. But tensions have escalated anyway. Germany is disgusted with Russia's tactics of disinformation and provocation, and has declared intention to stop importing Russian natural gas entirely if they invade Ukraine. This would mean paying a LOT more money to keep Germans warm this winter, but most Germans across the ideological spectrum consider that a small price to pay to prevent war.

Then there's the United States. The United States led NATO in laying the sanctions smackdown on Russia in the aftermath of the 2014 annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine. Neoconservative Republicans wanted Obama to take a stronger stand against Russia, perhaps with some bombings or military assistance to Ukraine, but paleoconservatives wanted to stay out of any foreign conflict. When Obama did take a strong stance against Russia, the paleoconservative position became the party's dominant position. Donald Trump took special glee in his 2016 campaign calling Obama a warmonger and making excuses for Putin's Russia.

After the Trump Campaign's cooperation with Russians who hacked the 2020 election fell technically short of the US criminal law definition of conspiracy, Trump was adaptable -- some would say erratic -- about US foreign policy towards Russia. He would strengthen and weaken sanctions without obvious pattern, met with Putin at times openly and other times in secret, and when Congress passed a new sanctions bill against Russia (and other countries) Trump simply refused to enforce the Russian sanctions.

The Trump Administration also dragged their feet in defending the interest of any countries that sought American help against Russia, including Ukraine. The most famous example of this is Trump's call to the Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in which he ostensibly demanded a political assassination of Joe Biden in exchange for actually giving Ukraine the military aid that Congress had already voted to give them. This was bribery (specifically, soliciation of a bribe) under US criminal law and the US Constitutional description of what crimes justify conviction on impeachment of a President. But, in a rejection of rule of law, most Senate Republicans ignored the evidence and worked directly with Trump's defense lawyers in order to thwart the impeachment trial. Trump was impeached by the House, but escaped conviction in the Senate, for his role in undermining Ukraine's defense against Russian meddling for his own personal benefit.

Trump and German PM Angela Merkel found a rare point of common ground in their mutual support for Nord Stream 2. But when they both lost elections in 2020, the dream of Russia circumventing Ukraine to sell natural gas directly to Germany died. In April 2020, in response to the economic impacts of the COVID pandemic, Trump brokered an international agreement with 20 countries including OPEC, Russia, and Mexico to cut global oil production by 9.7 million barrels/day (3.1 million B/D of it in the USA) and slowly reintroduce oil production back into the economy; half by 2022, and the other half to be negotiated based on circumstances in 2022. This deal or one substancially like it was absolutely necessary to prevent adding an global oil crisis to the already tumultous first pandemic year, but as a side effect ensured US and global oil and gasoline prices would stay high for years after lockdowns ended and oil demand returned. Russia heavily favored cutting oil production, since the oil company profits enabled Russia to improve their economy without despite the economic sanctions they operated under, and Trump did nothing to oppose Moscow's call for as large a cut as possible.

PUTIN

Summarizing all this, Putin has at least 4 good motives, solidly based on Russia's national interest, to heighten tensions with Ukraine. And history demonstrates that he will lie, cheat, steal, and commit acts of war in order to achieve his ends.

The very existence of tensions between Ukraine and Russia has increased profit margins on Russian oil and natural gas exports, helping Russia's economy and helping them circumvent international economic sanctions.

Putin can pressure Ukraine to release fresh water into Crimea, implying that they accept the validity of the annexation and making it easier for Russia to manage Crimea.

He can pressure Germany to accept natural gas through Nord Stream 2, either by physically destroying the Ukrainian alternative pipeline or as a German concession in negotiations to prevent war. This would hurt Ukraine's economy, benefit Russia's, and would make Russia even more impervious to international sanctions.

He can test the resolve of the USA, NATO, and the EU (collectively, "The West"), and take for Russia whatever they will allow Russia to take. This fulfills his political promise to restore traditional Russian power on the global stage by traditional Russian means.

More speculatively, he might be able to annex more of Ukraine. Traditionally, Russia doesn't feel complete as a nation without Kiyv and Moscow residing within the same national borders. Think of it as Russia's equivalent to the Manifest Destiny cultural myth.

Interestingly, he can accomplish all of these goals (except annexing Ukraine) without war. All he has to do is bring the West to the negotiating table and get them to concede these points. But, if negotiations fail, he can go to war to try to take these concessions by force. This puts him in a strong negotiating position. Russian people generally think that Putin would never be crazy enough to fight their family in Ukraine, but is just trying to bluff the West into greater concessions. They're probably right about that. That doesn't imply that it will fail.

[[ TODO: integrate bibliography from external file ]]

#russia #crimea #ukraine #putin #zelenskyy #merkel #biden #trump #geopolitics #foreign policy #germany #usa #nato #eu #war #rumors of war

114 notes · View notes

chessinventor · 3 years ago

Text

For me, just one thing is sufficient to act as 'evidence' for me to substantiated that the claim of both EU/NATO/USA/Ukraine and Russia are 'cooperated' to make a protracted war full of elements to touch its international audience when the former who are suppose to protect Ukraine from harm is delaying any direct military involvement in the name of their countries so no formal war is waged between those countries and Russia and there is no official military alliance nor official pact (all except the pact to de-nuclearize Ukraine signed by CCP China, Russia, Ukraine and USA which promise full military protection.) And on the other hand Russia military seems to delay the usage of mass destructive weapon and somehow manage to retain air power of Ukraine, so is it waiting for the other side to make its move? Not wanting to show US and its NATO allies the real destructive power of Russia military? Or had no capabilities to do so.The first option is what I considered 'evidence' to support my thesis when both sides are acting with an agreed script so a gradual escalation is expected, and that is to increase the tensions and threat that the international audience experience; it is not unlike the mind tricks many governments 'play' with its governed subjects and both are based on similar psychological principles and theories on operation of mind. Each side wait for the other side to make a move then it made its own move according to some plan. When running computer stimulation, it is all possible when two autonomous programs each has it's own priorities and objectives interact each other as if they are acting from a script, one case in point is how some birds fly in a reverse V formation so it is very hard to distinguish when it is merely a coincident when those autonomous national entities each is making decision regarding this matter completely individually based on its own set of priorities and objectives, so it is NOT a necessary consequence of autonomous national entities each act on the perceived nation interest; or the whole drama is planned from its very beginning of what would be expected at different stages of the whole saga with sinister aim to increase military spending or to eventually impose a New World Order that enslave everyone on Earth.Those who love to use DS conspiracy theory just to explain every happenings between nations somehow are always missing the role of Russia. How could be a world domination plan succeed without the full cooperation of Russia? I would also like to ask how is it possibly for DS not able to predict that Donald Trump would be the president of USA when it has every means and data on its disposal? So at some point of time Russia and its leader has to be involved in this sinister be he aware of that or not. So why not seriously consider the possibility either Putin is the one whole control the whole DS, or he is a hired gun act according to his role in the play, or somehow he is manipulated/fooled into act exactly according to what DS want. Just why would Putin be excluded and some white America see the Earth as flat and saw America is the center of the world. That is both arrogant and foolish.

#ukrainerussiawarrussia invasion of ukraineenergydeep stateqanonconsipracyconspiracy theorieschristian fundamentalismputinvladmir putinusaint

2 notes · View notes

realrussia · 3 years ago

Text

The current situation

Igornews. The mentality of the Russian people ----------------------------------------------- The fact is that this whole mess started because Europe tore up the treaty on non-expansion of NATO to the east. Putin realized that if Ukraine joined NATO, an attack on Crimea would begin and NATO nuclear missiles would be deployed in Ukraine. Putin realized that all the treaties on the model of the United States, Europe decided to simply tear up. America needs a local war not on their territory. Remember - all previous US presidents have opened local wars since Yugoslavia, etc. Iraq, Libya, Syria...Biden, at the direction of the Pentagon, needs this local war. He came up with a political move with the expansion of NATO. And it worked. Personally, I dislike Putin for his domestic policy towards pensioners. But when Russia is surrounded by Nuclear missiles in the NATO system, the Russian mentality works here. The Russian people instantly unite around the leader to repel an external threat. This has been going on since the Crusaders invaded ancient Russia. Russians, including me, we support Putin's foreign policy. We are mostly active patriots. At the moment of danger, we forget all the bad things - low salaries and pensions, wild inflation, unemployment, etc. Putin had the only way out. He took advantage of the situation in Donbass (the 8-year war of the people of Donbass for their independence from Ukraine). Putin urgently recognized the people of Donbass as a sovereign state, instantly concluded a military alliance with them, as with states, to protect them from Ukraine. The way he did it in Syria. Legally, Putin did everything right. He started the war at the request of the independent states of Donetsk and Lugansk to protect the Russian People in the Donbass. Putin wants to destroy Nazism in Ukraine and make Ukraine a neutral state, following the example of Switzerland. Then all attempts by NATO to advance to the East will automatically be eliminated. The constitution of Ukraine will change, a people's referendum will be held, the president of Ukraine will change. Now, against the European Union, against the United States, Putin has developed counter-sanctions that have hurt the EU and the United States. This applies to the banking sector, Space, Officials and politicians of the EU and the USA. This is only 30% of the total set of counter measures. These measures are absolutely mirrored. The West and the United States "got into a puddle." The EU is now trying to "save face" in this quagmire of sanctions. Europe has realized that if Putin, as a counter measure, tightens the gas and oil tap by at least 10%, the European economy will be put at risk. Europe has realized that being a "mutt" of the United States is more expensive for itself and does not know how to escape from the trap into which it fell through the fault of the United States. America benefits first of all from all this mess. It was calculated for this. But if Putin asks China to support him in terms of pressure on the United States, including Chinese sanctions, taking advantage of China's passionate desire to take Taiwan, that's where a black streak will begin for Biden and all his satellites. Biden will increase the work of the dollar printing press. Wild inflation will automatically occur, which will approach the Russian level. Americans will howl from this, because America is ruled by the law "The dollar decides everything" and an increase in gasoline prices "by three kopecks" will raise a wave of protests in the United States.Biden will automatically get impeached. US industrial magnates are now suffering losses. But the military lobby gets super profits. There will be a "misunderstanding" between the industrial magnates and the US military lobby. Trump is automatically activated as the leader of the industrial lobby. And in the wake of the American "unrest of the people", Trump will have a chance to be re-elected to the post of president. And since he had previously found common ground with Putin, with the support of the US industrial lobby, already this year, this chance will begin to play out in full force. Europe will finally understand that blindly following the course of US policy is a dead-end and dangerous path. German Chancellor Mrs Merkel has proved it.

#politic #russia #cold war

2 notes · View notes

libertariantaoist · 4 years ago

Link

News Roundup 4/8/21

by Kyle Anzalone

US News

The Biden Administration appears unlikely to rejoin the Open Skies Treaty. Trump withdrew from the treaty. The Air Force has confirmed it is retiring the spy planes used in surveillance operations allowed under the treaty. The State Department passed a memo to its European allies saying the US was concerned about Russian violations. [Link]

According to a report from Bloomberg, Biden is considering more sanctions on Russia and expelling Russian diplomats from the US. [Link]

The US sanctioned two suspected members of a Mexican cartel. [Link]

The Biden Administration says it will only engage with North Korea diplomatically if the talks lead to denuclearization. [Link]

Ukraine

Ukraine’s President plans to travel to the war zone today. [Link]

The US delivered 350 tonnes of cargo to Ukraine, including 35 humvees. [Link]

Russia warns it may feel compelled to defend its citizens in eastern Ukraine. [Link]

Israel

Biden plans to restore $200 million in aid to Palestine. [Link] Israel says it opposes the move. [Link]

Israel announces it will build 540 new settler housing units. [Link]

Israel carried out airstrikes against Syria’s capital.* Israel says the Iran Nuclear Deal risks annihilation for the Jewish State. [Link]

Iraq

The UK says it carried out several airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month. [Link]

The US says it will eventually remove troops from Iraq, but did not offer a timeline. [Link]

#kyle anzalone #immersion news #libertarian institute #news roundup

6 notes · View notes

goodwettoco2727 · 4 years ago

Text

Donald J. Trump: On the Threshold of Greatness

By Daniel Davies

Despite the many ways in which he’s reviled today, I believe that history will record Trump as one of America’s greatest presidents. Looking at America’s most admired presidents, I was able to identify the four criteria needed to earn that accolade:

• First and foremost, the president led the country through a life and death struggle.

• Second, the president suffered intense defamation, attack, pernicious plots, and even demonization both domestic and foreign but prevailed.

• Third, the president defended and supported our Republic’s foundational documents and institutions: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including all Amendments, especially the Bill of Rights.

• Fourth, he supported American liberty, prosperity, and social welfare. All the greats promoted the actualization of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights during their presidencies.

Four presidents have met all those criteria: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. One president, Donald Trump, is on the threshold of meeting those criteria. His place is reserved at Mt. Rushmore and history will tell if he is successful. If he is not successful, our nation may perish in the face of the life and death struggle we are now in.

Donald Trump entered the office of the president in 2016 facing a life and death struggle. The previous administration had eviscerated the US military, created an unhealthy alliance with Iran, taken a stand against Israel, failed to take the ISIS caliphate seriously, and presided over a weakening NATO alliance in which member states failed to contribute to the mutual defense. In addition, both Iran and North Korea openly developed nuclear weapons and North Korea threatened an attack on the USA. The United States economy, still not recovered from the recession triggered by the 9/11/2001 attacks, suffered from unequal trade agreements and suffocating government regulations. Race war threatened to break out in a hyper divided nation. The USA also maintained a co-dependent relationship with China, enabling its campaign of total war against the USA in their quest to become the world’s only superpower.

As serious as all those challenges were, the most serious challenge came from within the USA (the second criterion). The previous administration colluded with the DOJ, CIA, FBI, and the federal court system. In addition, corporate media colluded with the administration. The previous administration’s executives entered into corrupt relationships with China, Russia, and Ukraine in return for money.

Despite the constant attack from domestic forces, especially the deep state media, deep state politicians, deep state executive branch departments which falsely accused Trump of racist policies, immorality, graft, collusion with Russia, fascist policies, poor health, and insanity, President Trump presided over the most successful presidency in history, thereby meeting the third and fourth criteria. He

• defused the North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats,

• completely defeated the ISIS caliphate,

• concluded the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan,

• renegotiated trade agreements,

• strengthened NATO,

• brought energy independence to the USA,

• presided over the strongest economic recovery in history, especially for minorities,

• husbanded historic stock market highs,

• freed businesses from strangling regulations,

• advanced religious liberty,

• protected freedom of speech,

• thwarted illegal immigration,

• rebuilt the military,

• kept the promise to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,

• brokered peace treaties between Israel and former enemies,

• protected the rights of the unborn,

• protected Second Amendment rights,

• advanced health insurance reforms, and

• reformed the VA hospital system.

President Trump nearly single-handedly brought the USA back as the world leader. We were prosperous, at peace, and growing in national unity. All in the face of the most vicious and hostile attacks domestic and foreign.

Donald Trump’s election caught the ruling party by surprise. They had counted on manipulating the 2016 election to maintain control of the government. When that failed, the Deep State launched an all-out effort to remove Donald Trump from office by any means possible. The Deep State (including the CIA, DOJ, FBI, Congress, media including social media, and state governments loyal to the administration) colluded to remove Donald Trump from office through impeachment. When those efforts failed, the Deep State, led by the previous administration behind the scenes, ramped up its program to steal the election of 2020.

In January 2020, both the first and second metrics reappeared (great national crisis; extreme attacks against the president). China unleashed a weapons-grade, biologically engineered virus on the world, the so-called COVID-19 virus. President Trump took quick action to thwart the attack by banning Chinese from traveling to the USA, providing care for the sick, and developing preventatives as well as vaccines. The Deep State immediately seized the opportunity to use the pandemic to consolidate control of the government (federal and state) and to damage President Trump politically.

The pandemic worked perfectly into their plan to steal the election from President Trump. They learned from the campaign of 2016 that they could not defeat President Trump in a fair election because most Americans rejected the Deep State’s anti-American values.

The Deep State’s plans to rig the election got aid from billions of dollars from social media giants and anti-American agents. They manipulated state governments through courts to permit unmonitored mail-in ballots, bypassing the state legislatures in key swing states. Through that and other types of fraud, the Deep State engineered a stolen election.

On January 6, 2021, when Congress convened to accept the electors’ votes for president and vice president, between 500,000 to 1 million Americans assembled in Washington D.C. to protest the stolen election and oppose Congress’s acceptance of electors. Despite overwhelming proof of election fraud, the swing states ramrodded through electors supporting the Deep State’s candidates. State and federal courts refused to review the evidence to delegitimize the election. Members of both political parties voted to accept the sham electors. The people who gave President Trump a landslide victory felt betrayed.

The Deep State, working hand in glove with domestic terrorists, co-opted a huge, peaceful protest into a small assault on the Capitol buildings. The Deep State media (included social media), through prearranged statements, immediately characterized the protest as an “insurrection” that President Trump engineered. The media censored any view to the opposite and sought to shut down all free speech.

This is a life and death threat to the Republic unlike the life and death threats faced by other great presidents. This is an attack on American institutions and values from within and without. If President Trump can save the country from this attack, he will take his place in Mr. Rushmore. I believe that he will.

5 notes · View notes

financialsmatter · 2 years ago

Text

We Traded Mean Tweets for WW3

It comes as no surprise to us that we’re being criticized for even suggesting that we’re on the verge of WW3. And that’s a result of how the media Presstitutes lead you to believe that the USA is fighting for the survival of democracy in Ukraine. LOL! Ukraine’s version of democracy is based on how much money they can extort from the world for their role as a proxy war between the West and Russia. As a result, the Presstitutes fail to ever mention how the West put their puppet regime in place in Ukraine in 2014. And since then, they’ve violated the policies and/or peace treaty they originally agreed to…see Minsk Agreement. Ironically (or NOT) the agreement was signed on September 5, 2014 and – quite conveniently – expired on February 21, 2022…about the time Russia invaded Ukraine. Coincidence? It was only a few short years ago that we heard how Trump will start World War 3 with his policies…and mean tweets. Now, the party of peace is showing their bloodlust by putting us on the brink of Armageddon thanks to their current Ukraine/Zelensky policies. All for WW3 In case you missed it, Zelensky has announced the only way Ukraine will negotiate with Russia is if Putin is removed. And has called on the West/NATO to use nukes as a ‘Pre-emptive strike’ on Russia before they use them first. Translation: We can’t possibly win against Putin. So, who are the real warmongers here? What these warmongering fools can’t seem to figure out is that if Putin is out, then his Boyz in the background will gladly launch nukes against the West. They believe Putin is being soft. But the reality is, Putin is keeping the nukes in check. (No Pun Intended). And yet the leftists insist the threat of WW3 was all because of Trump. And last week Stinky Joe said warned we face the threat of ‘Nuclear Armageddon’ as the USA stockpiles anti-radiation drugs. Bottom line here? We don’t mind being criticized for saying that the US is instigating WW3. READ: Was Nord Stream Provocation for WW3? October 7, 2022. And based on many of the so-called World Leaders aggressive actions lately, it’s becoming obvious that a Global War is moving from the inevitable to imminent stage. So, instead of one day finding yourself saying: “I’m shocked I tell you, Shocked! Who could’ve foreseen this happening?”…be sure to take actions and prepare accordingly. Read the October edition of “…In Plain English” (HERE) and you’ll understand why. You’ll thank us later. And share this with a friend…especially if they think we’re moving closer to WW3. They’ll thank YOU later. At Financial$Matter We’re Not Just About Finance. But we use finance to give you hope. FYI ********************************* Invest with confidence. Sincerely, James Vincent The Reverend of Finance Copyright © 2022 It's Not Just About Finance, LLC, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Read the full article

0 notes

darkmaga-returns · 3 months ago

Text

Europe is not enough, if the US stops helping Ukraine the war is over

1) Jake Sullivan recently announced that President Biden plans to request additional funding from Congress for Ukraine. How would you interpret this decision at this point?

In the United States we would call Biden’s request for more Ukraine funding a “Hail Mary Pass” (a term used in American football). It means he is making the request to show his solidarity with Ukraine and to try and squeeze the Republicans to somehow support Ukraine in future. My own opinion is that Congress will not take up the Biden proposal, instead waiting for Trump to take office. I don’t think Biden believes the measure has any chance. Conditions have changed since the last, massive supplemental for Ukraine. Huge expenditures have not improved Ukraine’s situation, in fact the Russians continue to make significant gains against Ukraine’s army and continue to devastate the Ukrainian critical infrastructure, especially the power grid. If the war continues, Ukraine could become non-recoverable in terms of infrastructure, and the Ukrainians who left the country won’t come back to a wasteland. 2) In your view, what should we expect from a Trump administration concerning Ukraine? Do you think there’s a realistic prospect of U.S.-Russia dialogue to end the war?

A lot depends on the behavior of the Russian leader. I think Trump wants to negotiate with Putin, but Putin, at least so far, wants to win the war in Ukraine, or nearly so, before he engages with Trump. So, it is a kind of Kabuki. There are far more important issues than Ukraine, namely the future of NATO, the disposition of nuclear forces, and how to reduce the threat signature between Europe (including the USA) and Russia. Putin wants to speak with Trump about all these topics, and much more. Trump will also have to think about the future US role in Europe, and the danger of a wider conflict. We must wait and see who makes contact first. My sense it will be Trump once he has his team in place and has discussed the strategic situation fully.

2 notes · View notes

dwestfieldblog · 3 years ago

Text

A GOODBYE TO BOHEMIA

(Part 1ne...’APRIL IS THE CRUELLEST MONTH’?)

In the space of three days, I met a young Bulgarian businessman who said that in his country, they are told that Boris Johnson is a great leader. Apparently, BJ is trying his best to balance decent wages and taxes for all, as well as making great strides in solving the covid and Russia problems. This came as surprising news to me and I had to review the cold facts for him. Truths, not opinions.

Next day, I read about the Ukraine women raped by Russian soldiers and the group of ‘Christians’ here in Prague saying loudly that the grievously abused should not have abortions because murdering a foetus is a crime worse than a war time violation by a uniformed ape. How very Christ like of them. Two weeks later a Czech bishop (yes really) said that the Russian soldiers were victims too). Listen to Satan giggling through the sideways dimensions...

And on the third day a Russian bloke wrote to me ‘I agree with our leader, the Nazis have occupied the territory of Ukraine and the countries of Europe and the USA are helping them.’ Hmm...A country full of Nazis who elected a Jewish president over a good Christian Kremlin puppet eh? Seems a little fornicatingly unlikely. Apparently basic education in Russia is at an even lower standard than the West. Quite possibly they spend more money on propaganda than critical thinking. As do we. And this is what we all get.

The ‘special operation’ to liberate a sister country from hoards of imaginary fascists continues with civilian bodies strewn in streets, rockets fired at a train station crowded with refugees, un-faked scenes of war crimes, threats of nuclear weapons to the West and tactical nukes to their neighbour....If Putin truly wanted to negotiate, he could have ordered his goons to at very least observe the Geneva convention on human rights. The ongoing torture and murder of non combatants suggests he made his mind up months ago. And as for his Gazprom hissy fit cutting off gas to Poland and Bulgaria...blackmail smacks of desperation little man. Just how small is your dick anyway?

The name Vladimir means ‘ruler of the world, ruler of peace, of great power’, but with every murder Putin diminishes in power and loses the last dregs of respect any other than types like Trump have for him. Never a righteous assassin around when you need one. How many other countries have Russian speaking inhabitants he will feel duty bound to protect from Nazis controlled by the West? As said before, Fascism is apparently ok when HE does it. Meanwhile, Hungary voted for Orban...and by extension, Putin the Dead End President. You get the leaders you bloody deserve, says the very Englishman.

Le Pen in France who received money from Kremlin banks and sashays a high wire over thin ice between populism and outright fascism is doing too well. The deep wrongs of the far right are closer to assuming power, a damn good thing she lost. Would her plans to ban outward signs of religion include the wearing of crucifixes? I dream of the day when people fully understand that populists only say stuff in order to be popular, in the same way that ordinary politicians (ha) promise to reduce taxes and increase wages to get a vote, but amplifying on fears twice as much. Another appallingly naive and obvious sentence perhaps... but in 2022, millions still buy the LIES from this scum as dumb as ever.

Pakistan and Israel being stirred up, encouraged by outside forces, IE. Russia, as the West has nothing to gain by chaos in those countries (at the moment) and much to lose by being dragged into extra conflict these days. Whereas the gremlin in the Kremlin would gain from extra chaos and distraction of NATO and various governments being spread too thin. And as for the sheer nerve of Russia making subtle threats as to the outcome should Sweden and Finland choose to join NATO...Eastern brothers, expansion is what happens when you invade a sovereign state and go murdering and raping. But perhaps I better not use the phrase ‘false pretexts’. (Glass houses of the West and all that.)

Globally, increases in food and fuel prices are enflaming rage, dumbass (but not irrational) reactions to the possibility of future lockdowns and further vaccinations...not exactly a pre orgasmic tension unless based on the anticipation of a massive wargasm. There are sound reasons the cultic milieu believe anything as long as it is not mainstream. Fake new age mysticism, militant fringe philosophies, groups led by gurus preaching self empowerment as long as you mortgage your soul and cash. But when hate filled populists are rising in mass favour, surely they are also the mainstream?

Swipe left from the personality cults of religion and politics

‘Enhancing the ego of an individual is a good way of controlling them’ (Jaz Coleman.) You are special and important and everyone loves you...

‘All opinions are not equal. All tunnel-realties are not equal, for equality would obviate the necessity for our diversity. Ideas must be left in the form of working hypotheses open to argument, the approximation of the truth found by the process of experimentation.’ Christopher S Hyatt, Ph.D.

‘That’s the point about beliefs, they don’t change the facts. Facts, if you are rational, should change your beliefs’ Gervais.

And, uuuff, back in the Untied Kingdom of the platinum Queen, April fools tax rises...’levelling up’ versus Heat or Eat, are the stark choices now facing the majority of folk on the island. Income tax was already increased, wages either frozen of lowered and the health service fatally wounded by covid and the combination of Tory sleaze and wilful cutbacks. A greater number of older people, those suffering from long covid and those more ill because of a massive increase in waiting list times for operations and basic procedures. Foodstuffs more expensive because of the war and Brexit import duties.

Meanwhile the delightful back end of a bus hipped Pritti Patel with the ugly heart casts her brilliant 120million pound deal idea of sending refugees who arrive in the UK on small boats or lorries off to the paradise of Rwanda where the scary shoebills breed. Nice and humane she is not. Only a few years ago, the UK raised serious questions about the regime there and the dangers to its own citizens at a United Nations meeting. What a charming solution to the refugee situation eh? Will the same apply to Ukrainians too? Big Ben’s chimes of freedom. Ha. ‘Flashing for the refugees on the unarmed route of flight’

The Londongrad shame is not going to go away any time soon, the capital city continues to be useful laundry service for criminal oligarchs. The mass corruption in the UK among the (arf) ‘elite; (read scum)....Again, my naive thought is that if the rich paid the correct amount of tax (the greedy darlings even complain about the low rates) applicable to them and they were also punished with anything close to the severity with which are the poor, then actual justice would be served. And the coffers would be filled all the more if all the bankers and executives who lorded over collapses due to sleaze and incompetence were not rewarded with the mind raping insanity of large bonuses and titles. Dream on Dave.

Going to split this extra long blog in half, hope to be back after the glorious charade coming in Moscow for May the 9th... Peace. Hmm

0 notes