Creator of Bracing Views. Contributor to TomDispatch, Truthout, HNN, Alternet, Huffington Post, Antiwar, and other sites. Retired AF lieutenant colonel and professor of history. Senior fellow, Eisenhower Media Network
Ninety-nine American healthcare workers who volunteered to work in Gaza and who’ve witnessed the effects of the Israeli onslaught there suggest that nearly 120,000 Palestinians are already dead.
That huge number doesn’t surprise me. When you look at the photos from Gaza and the Stalingrad-like devastation, I’d guessed that the “official” death toll of roughly 42,000 was a serious undercount. That number comes from morgue and hospital statistics; it doesn’t account for people buried under the rubble, for missing people, and of course for people who’ve died of “natural” causes due to the disruption of hospital care, of potable water supplies, and so on.
More details are provided in this article at Antiwar.com. Also, you can read the letter written by these 99 healthcare workers, imploring the Biden/Harris administration to stop providing the bombs, missiles, shells, bullets, and other munitions Israel has been using to shred the bodies of so many innocent people in Gaza.
“Never again” was supposed to be the message we learned from the horrific Holocaust against the Jews perpetrated by the Nazis and their fellow travelers. “Never again” applies to the people of Gaza. It applies to people everywhere who are slaughtered simply because of who they are and because another people wants to be rid of them.
This is the leading reason why I can’t support Biden/Harris, now Harris/Walz. I can’t support Trump/Vance. The U.S. political establishment is completely spineless and immoral in its total support of Israel as it applies its own final solution to the Palestinian question. Whether it’s Harris or Trump, the message is “Support Israel” no matter what. And I refuse to sanction that. I refuse to vote for that.
Gaza, much like Stalingrad in World War II, is a desolate and increasingly unlivable moonscape of craters and destruction
Whether they like it or not (and they seem very much to like it), the Democratic Party has become America’s war party.
The U.S./Ukrainian Flag on Biden’s lapel says it all. Zelenskyy, as a former actor, has his role down pat
This is especially true with respect to Ukraine. Zelenskyy has won another $7.9 billion in its war with Russia, prompting this “thank you” from him:
I am grateful to Joe Biden, US Congress and its both parties, Republicans and Democrats, as well as the entire American people for today’s announcement of major US defence assistance for Ukraine totalling $7.9bn and sanctions against Russia.
On behalf of the Ukrainian people and our brave warriors on the frontlines, I thank our closest ally, the United States, for finding a way to allocate the remaining security assistance to Ukraine and ensure that the Presidential authority is not expired by the end of the US financial year.
We will use this assistance in the most efficient and transparent manner to achieve our major common goal: victory for Ukraine, just and lasting peace, and transatlantic security.
I am grateful to the United States for providing the items that are most critical to protecting our people. An additional Patriot air defence battery, other air defence capabilities and interceptors, drones, long-range missiles, and air-to-ground munitions, as well as funds to strengthen Ukraine’s defence industrial base.
I also appreciate the decision to expand programs to train more of our pilots to fly F-16s, as well as the strong sanctions measures imposed to further limit Russia’s ability to fund its aggression against Ukraine.
Kamala Harris is committed to supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” meaning, I guess, some sort of “victory” over Russia, however unlikely that is. So look for a lot more dead and wounded Ukrainians and Russians and a world still hovering on the brink of nuclear war.
Over to Israel. Kamala Harris has pledged her undying and eternal support for Israel’s right to defend itself, meaning any action Israel is prepared to take, including genocide in Gaza. She has ruled out any curtailment of weapons shipments to Israel. According to the BBC, stemming the flow of weapons to Israel is a “left” position. Any sensible moderate and conservative is totally for genocide, I gather.
None of this is surprising, of course. When it comes to war, America is a uniparty of Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris. There is no difference among them, which is why Cheney endorsed Harris, and why more than 700 senior national security officials gushed about her.
Donald Trump, meanwhile, seeks to end the Russia-Ukraine War. Does that make him a “leftist”?
Of course not. Trump, like Harris, is totally behind Israel, and totally in bed with the military-industrial complex. Yet he’s skeptical of NATO and has an aversion to war and death in Russia and Ukraine, which for me is his strongest suit.
If you’re truly antiwar and seek a candidate who’s against massive military spending and imperial dominance, your best bet is Jill Stein and the Green Party. You know—the “crazy” or “fringe” people, according to the mainstream media.
In what passes for Democracy in America, the electoral vote determines the president, not the popular vote, meaning there are certain “battleground states” that are far more important than those that are reliably “blue” or “red.” Pennsylvania is one of them. It may all come down to the PA vote, according to The Nation, so both parties are doing their best to pander to PA voters.
That’s the main reason Kamala Harris flip-flopped on fracking: to win more votes in Pennsylvania. She was bluntly against fracking; now she says she’s all for it; rank opportunism is all it is, which makes her typical of most politicians.
The suits sign artillery shells—the closest they’ll get to war
Even worse than the flip-flop on fracking was Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s recent visit to Scranton, PA, where he signed artillery shells intended to kill Russians in Ukraine. Zelenskyy also gave an interview in which he criticized the Trump/Vance ticket and its understanding of and approach to the Russia-Ukraine War. Doesn’t this count as foreign interference in America’s elections?
There’s something incredibly unseemly about this. A foreign leader comes to America and signs artillery shells meant to kill other human beings, with our taxpayer funds paying for the shells as well as his trip (he flew on a U.S. Air Force plane). And he tacitly endorses Kamala Harris over her opponent.
I don’t want my taxpayer funds going to shells that kill Russians. I certainly don’t want to celebrate it. Of course, I don’t want my taxpayer funds going to kill Palestinians in Gaza either, but my voice doesn’t matter.
We’re likely to hear more about alleged foreign interference in U.S. elections, but which leader/country has more influence on U.S. politics: Putin/Russia, Zelenskyy/Ukraine, or Netanyahu/Israel?
Hint: Who came to Congress and had its members jumping out of their seats to applaud him rapturously as if his appearance constituted the Second Coming?
Spend More on the Military! Says the New York Times
As the U.S. deploys more troops to the Middle East (now nearing 50,000 and rising), as Israel expands its war into Lebanon by killing nearly 500 people there, as Palestinians continue to die in Gaza and the West Bank as Israel steals their land, the “liberal” New York Times is running features on how “weak” the U.S. military is.
This is from yesterday’s New York Times send-out, citing a recent (and typical) bipartisan study:
*******
American weaknesses
The report cited several major U.S. weaknesses, including:
A failure to remain ahead of China in some aspects of military power. “China is outpacing the United States and has largely negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific through two decades of focused military investment,” the report concluded.
One reason is the decline in the share of U.S. resources devoted to the military. This Times chart, which may surprise some readers, tells the story:
Source: Congressional Budget Office | By The New York Times
The report recommended increasing military spending, partly by making changes to Medicare and Social Security (which is sure to upset many liberals) and partly by increasing taxes, including on corporations (which is sure to upset many conservatives). The report also called for more spending on diplomacy and praised the Biden administration for strengthening alliances in Europe and Asia.
A Pentagon bureaucracy that’s too deferential to military suppliers. The report criticized consolidation among defense contractors, which has raised costs and hampered innovation. The future increasingly lies with drones and A.I., not the decades-old equipment that the Pentagon now uses.
A U.S. manufacturing sector that isn’t strong enough to produce what the military needs. A lack of production capacity has already hurt the country’s efforts to aid Ukraine, as The Times has documented. “Putin’s invasion has demonstrated how weak our industrial base is,” David Grannis, the commission’s executive director, said. If the Pentagon and the innovative U.S. technology sector collaborated more, they could address this problem, Grannis added.
A polarized political atmosphere that undermines national unity. A lack of patriotism is one reason that the military has failed to meet its recent recruitment goals. Perhaps more worrisome, many Americans are angry at one another rather than paying attention to external threats.
*******
Where to begin with such nonsense?
So-called “defense” spending currently sits at or above $1 trillion, representing roughly 60% of federal discretionary spending. It continues to rise. Showing it as declining vis-a-vis the GDP is lying through statistics.
Even if military spending was truly declining, which it isn’t, that would be a “good news” story. As President Eisenhower explained in 1953, military spending represents a theft from those who hunger, those who need shelter, those who need better schools and hospitals.
Social Security: Yes, the government is going to keep trying to cut benefits while handing the savings to military contractors. Ditto for Medicare.
Notice who’s mainly to blame for the alleged need for higher military spending: Putin and China.
The Pentagon has misspent funds and misunderstands war. The solution: give the Pentagon more money as a reward.
Americans are allegedly so angry with each other we’re not sufficiently hating Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and other alleged “external threats.”
America lacks patriotism!
All this is reported with a straight face and the utmost seriousness by your “liberal” friends at the New York Times.
So, when your Social Security benefits are reduced, when your Medicare bills go up, as you struggle even more mightily to make ends meet, just know your money is going to the Pentagon and the weapons makers.
Got a problem with that? The real problem just might be your lack of patriotism.
The Resolute Desk (White House Historical Association)
At a recent campaign event with Oprah Winfrey, Vice President Kamala Harris was given a chance at the end to appeal to undecided voters. This is what she said:
We love our country. I love our country. I know we all do. That’s why everybody is here right now. We love our country. We — we take pride in the privilege of being American.
And this is a moment where we can and must come together as Americans, understanding we have so much more in common than what separates us. Let’s come together with the — the character that we are so proud of about who we are, which is we are an optimistic people. We are an optimistic people.
Americans, by character, are people who have dreams and ambitions and aspirations. We believe in what is possible. We believe in what can be. And we believe in fighting for that.
That’s how — that’s how we came into being, because the people before us understood that one of the greatest expressions for the love of our country, one of the greatest expressions of patriotism, is to fight for the ideals of who we are, which includes freedom to make decisions about your own body; freedom to be safe from gun violence; freedom to have access to the ballot box; freedom to be who you are and just be, to love who you love openly and with pride; freedom to just be. And that’s who we are. We believe in all that.
And so, this is a moment where we stand, knowing what we are fighting for. We’re not fighting against. It’s what we’re fighting for.
Now, Harris has had plenty of practice as a public speaker. She knows, as a former prosecutor, how to put together an effective closing statement. This wasn’t it.
Let me see if I can decipher her meaning here. An undecided voter should choose Kamala because:
+ We all love America.
+ United by optimism, we must come together as Americans.
+ Americans are dreamers and we fight for those dreams.
+ We believe in freedom of choice for our own bodies; freedom to be safe from gun violence; freedom to vote; and freedom to love whom we want to love, and be who we want to be.
+ We need to fight for all that.
Ah, the glittering generalities! I hope they convince you fence-straddlers out there that Kamala is THE ONE.
You can (sort of) discern a message here. Kamala is saying vote for me because I’m pro-choice. Because I believe in tighter restrictions on guns. Because I’m against Republican efforts to make voting more difficult. And because I believe in and support the LGBTQ+ community. But she muddies her message with empty words and platitudes.
I can hear my friend telling me that Kamala is doing this deliberately. It’s the strategy of saying almost nothing with as many words as possible. In short, baffle them with BS, don’t try to dazzle them with brilliance. And keep the BS warm and fuzzy. Most people will just hear “love,” “optimism,” “dreams,” “freedom,” and the like. Don’t worry if it sounds vapid or vacuous. Avoid saying anything that critics can seize upon and exploit.
My mother-in-law taught me a great Polish expression that means “Don’t say nothing,” the double-negative being permissible in Polish for emphasis. That really should be Kamala’s campaign slogan, rather than “We’re not going back [to Trump].”
I took “debate & discussion” in high school and also used to grade my students on their oral presentations. If Kamala were my student, I’d mark her down for failing to speak clearly and concisely and for her tendency to avoid answering questions.
Part of being president—and an effective leader—is being a skilled speaker. Presidents, of course, speak to all of us, uniting America for the greater good (at least in theory; work with me here). Kamala Harris has a lot to learn here, unless she is following a “don’t say nothing” strategy by choice, which I find even more objectionable than weak and incoherent speaking.
Being a great speaker doesn’t mean you’ll be a great president. Just look at Barack Obama: fine speaker, mediocre president. But being a weak speaker, a confusing one, is a handicap when you’re trying to persuade Americans to do a difficult thing.
The Resolute Desk of the President is not the place for confused blather and irresolute words.
Coda on Donald Trump: As a speaker, Trump also has serious liabilities, e.g. lying, hyperbole, imprecision, a tendency to resort to insults when he believes himself aggrieved, a strong tendency to focus on himself and his own accomplishments, real or imagined. Trump is occasionally effective by stating blunt truths that most DC types would never risk saying: his strong denunciation of the Iraq War, his confession that America has plenty of killers on the world stage, that U.S. forces remain in Syria for the oil.
As a speaker, Trump lacks core principles. He further lacks humility and wit. The well for him to tap as a speaker is a shallow one that often runs dry when it’s most needed.
Trump’s speaking style in a single word is angry. It resonates with people who are fed up with the system. Harris’ speaking style is, well, it’s hard to sum up in one word. Perhaps vague, or vaguely hopeful. It resonates with people who are largely content with the system.
Will malcontents rule in 2025 (Trump) or the mostly contented (Harris)? Readers, what are your thoughts here?
Recently, a reader contacted me to end his subscription. He said I’m mimicking Sean Hannity and that my readership is increasingly toxic. My blog is “useless” too. So of course I honored his request without acrimony.
In refusing to take sides in the Harris-Trump election, I’ve been accused of being both pro- and anti-Trump, pro- and anti-Harris. Sorry: I try to be pro-truth, pro-justice, and pro-peace. On those terms, I can’t support Harris or Trump for the presidency.
When I say this, Trump and Harris supporters accuse me of false equivalency. Harris isn’t as bad as Trump! Trump is Hitler! Trump isn’t as bad as Harris! She’s a woke monster! And on and on …
This divisiveness, this acrimony, this animosity, is precisely what the powers that be want us to focus on. Personality politics. Red versus Blue. Hating the other side and expending all your energy against “Demoncrats” or “Rethuglicans” or whatever childish insult is currently in vogue. Libtards and Deplorables, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Meanwhile, while we stay divided, the rich get richer, growing ever more powerful, as the middle and working classes are hollowed out.
Issues are important to me. Policies and positions that favor the working and middle classes while promoting peace and eliminating militarism. That’s why I’m voting for Jill Stein.
That said, I respect my readers’ choices. Some of you will vote for Harris, some for Trump, some for Stein, and some of you, fed up, may not vote at all. I respect your decisions. And I hope my blog isn’t “useless” in your deliberations and in your wider lives.
As a song from my youth goes (which just popped into my head): “I beg your pardon—I never promised you a rose garden.” If you blog about politics, religion, war, and the like, you’re going to get pushback from readers. Readers will be offended no matter what you write, and a few are even looking to give offense, just for the fun of it (the trolls). Occasionally, I’ll even get down in the mud and wrestle a bit myself. Trolls and pigs shouldn’t have all the fun, right?
Bracing Views will continue to be a site that welcomes Harris supporters, Trump supporters, and those who think both candidates and parties are disasters. It will continue to welcome people of all faiths or no faith. We need sites where we can discuss the most vexing and perplexing issues freely.
Find a peaceful place to sit down and relax. (Author’s photo)
I tell people it’s OK to disagree. Just don’t be disagreeable. Don’t be a jerk about it. Don’t be insulting. Don’t be a troll. Most of the time, it works.
So, I don’t think I’ve turned into Sean Hannity—or Rachel Maddow. (Speaking of Maddow, no one is paying me $30 million yearly to support Harris; Hannity only makes $25 million, the poor bugger.) I don’t think the comment section here is “toxic.” I do think you’ll find people arguing their positions thoughtfully, and forcefully, most of the time, and even when people seem “unhinged” to you, rather than getting angry, I suggest you ask why it is that they believe what they say they believe (unless they’re just being jerks; I get a few of those).
I will continue to look at the American political scene while doing my best to avoid partisanship and acrimony, but it’s sure getting stormy out there, America.
America is one warbird with two right wings. That’s my expression, though of course I’m borrowing from Gore Vidal, who put it this way:
There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.
Gore Vidal (R) from the movie, “Gattaca”
Speaking of bipartisanship, the 2024 presidential election is a fascinating exercise in the mechanics of (impossible) flight, as the two right wings flap vigorously as America spirals downwards.
Let’s look at Trump. Two of his leading surrogates, Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are former Democrats. Tulsi left the party as she was smeared by Hillary Clinton and NBC as a Putin puppet, and RFK Jr. learned the hard way that Democrats were not about to allow any serious challenge to Biden/Harris. They are helping Trump in part because they were betrayed by establishment Democrats.
Let’s look at Harris. She’s embraced Dick and Liz Cheney and their endorsement of her, along with another letter of endorsement signed by more than 100 Republicans associated with national security. Harris has also vowed to put at least one Republican in her Cabinet if she’s elected. The Republicans who’ve supported Harris tend to be those who’ve been sidelined by Trump and MAGA.
Both “wings,” Republican and Democrat, fully support Israel in its genocide against Gaza. Both support more war, though Republicans tend to stress China as the primary threat instead of Democrats, who are fixated on Putin and Russia. Both support trillion dollar Pentagon budgets, though Republicans are more vocal in boosting military spending to even higher levels.
Of course, there are differences on certain domestic issues like abortion, for example. Yet, when it comes to war, foreign policy, and world crises, America the warbird flaps its bipartisan right wings with almost equal vigor, caught in a death spiral of its own making.
Any mention of the vaguest so-called left wing policies, such as reductions in military spending and the pursuit of diplomacy instead of war, is instantly denounced as impractical, foolish, unwise, even as un-American.
And so the warbird flaps on, the best scenario being that it goes nowhere, the worst being a crippling fall from the sky.
The Real Winner in November Won’t Be Harris or Trump
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern coined the term MICIMATT to describe America’s sprawling national (in)security state. It’s an expanded version of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s military-industrial-congressional complex, which Ike warned America about in 1961. (Ike originally included Congress in his warning, but in the speech he gave he left it out so as not to offend the DC elites.)
MICIMATT includes the military, industry (the weapons makers), Congress, the intelligence “community,” media, academia, and various think tanks funded by weapons makers and seeded with “thinkers” beholden to the donors. The acronym’s awkwardness is more than compensated by its acuity and scope. In fact, even MICIMATT isn’t quite sprawling enough. You’d also have to add Hollywood (all those movies and TV shows that glorify the military and war) and the sporting world to the mix. MICIMATTHS, perhaps? And I’m sure we could think of another letter or two to add, perhaps another “S” for the State Department, which has become a tiny branch of the Pentagon.
At every Boston Red Sox game this year, I’ve been reminded that America needs to build more nuclear submarines. Imagine an ad along each baseline that read: “PromotePeace”
Given the sweep as well as the power of the MICIMATT over our lives in America, especially our mindset, our culture, our way of thinking and doing, the real president that America is electing this November isn’t personages like Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. The real POTUS is the MICIMATT, a colossus that rules much of our lives and which dominates and largely determines U.S. foreign policy.
To tackle that colossus, you’ve got to cut its funding in a major way: 25% immediately, and perhaps 50% over the next five years. You’ve also got to change our culture. End threat inflation, end fear-mongering, end the worship of all things military. And I don’t see this happening whether the POTUS is Harris or Trump.
*****
On a related subject, I heard once again from my friend who believes I am too critical of Biden/Harris and insufficiently critical of Trump. For what it’s worth, here’s my reply:
Friend, as I’ve written time and time again, I’m against both Trump and Biden/Harris.
Lately, I’ve written more about Biden/Harris since the Dems are the party in power. Though I hope Trump doesn’t win, you’ll see plenty of articles criticizing him if he takes office again.
Also, there’s no shortage of anti-Trump articles in the mainstream media. I’m not about to repeat those. It’s not what my site is about. Why read BV if I just echo MSNBC?
I’m not confident that a Trump victory will produce a result that is more congenial to me with respect to the MICC and perpetual war. Even with Tulsi and RFK Jr. in the mix. Sorry, I can’t “own” that.
In my view, the worst outcome is another Trump victory. Close behind that is a Harris victory for reasons you already know, e.g. genocide in Gaza, more wars, tight embrace of Pentagon lethality, praise for the Cheneys and other Republcian neocons, etc.
In contributing to Harris and voting for her with some enthusiasm, are you prepared to “own” her tacit support of genocide in Gaza as well as her celebration of U.S. military lethality and her embrace of Republican neocons as true patriots?
A Vote for Harris Is a Vote for Cheney (It makes as much sense as a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump)
+ As if the world wasn’t hazardous enough, we now have to deal with exploding pagers, walkie-talkies, even solar power systems, apparently. Thank you, Israel.
+ Yet another article suggests that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump—and Russia. Maybe a vote for Stein is just a vote for Stein?
+ Yet another letter from more than 100 senior Republicans associated with the national (in)security state is telling me to vote for Kamala Harris for President. Maybe a vote for Harris is really a vote for Republicans and a neocon foreign policy?
+ Strangely, I’ve been accused of “hating” Trump because I dare to criticize him. No, I don’t “hate” Trump. I simply believe he’s not the right person to be president.
+ I got my usual fundraiser letters from Biden and Harris. There’s no vision or platform in these letters. It’s all about saving America from Trump and the end of democracy. There’s also vague talk about a better future. And that’s it. How inspiring!
+ Jill Stein got into trouble recently for being reluctant to dismiss Putin as a “war criminal.” What is a war criminal? Without consulting a legal definition, I’d describe a “war criminal” as someone who pursues aggressive war. Of course, most leaders claim whatever war they’re pursuing is “defensive.” They even avoid the term “war,” e.g. Obama’s “overseas contingency operations,” Putin’s “special military operation.”
So, “war criminal” is a bit like pornography, not always easy to define, but you know it when you see it. So, sure, Putin is a war criminal, but so too were LBJ, Nixon, Bush/Cheney, Obama, and Biden. Just look at Biden’s ongoing and fulsome support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Seriously, what the U.S. did in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were war crimes on a massive scale. The Iraq invasion in 2003 under the false pretense of WMD was a war crime. Meanwhile, the people who get punished for war crimes are usually low-level corporals and LTs. It’s never generals and most certainly never presidents.
+ Trump, or TDS if you prefer, has enabled the rehabilitation of war criminals like Bush and Cheney, with establishment Democrats eagerly embracing both these men.
Now beloved by Democrats everywhere
+ A vote for Harris is a vote for Dick Cheney makes more logical sense than a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. Meanwhile, if you vote for Trump, you’re likely to get Dick Cheney as well, because I don’t believe Trump has the ability to resist the Pompeos, the Boltons, the generals, and the usual suspects he’ll surround himself with.
+ If Harris loses the election in November, it won’t be because of Jill Stein. Or Russia. Or even Bracing Views. It will be because not enough people believed in her. But if Harris does lose, I expect the DNC will blame the voters for racism and sexism, Putin for election interference, and Jill Stein for stealing votes from Harris. Naturally, Harris and the DNC will not be to blame. Now, if they win, all credit will flow to Harris and the DNC. It’s nice to be able to run for office where even if you lose, it’s not your fault.
Readers, what’s on your mind this Thursday?
Bonus thought: I feel like political criticism has become a bizarre zero-sum game in America. If I criticize Trump, that means I’m helping Harris. If I criticize Harris, that means I’m helping Trump.
Can’t I criticize both of them? Because I want neither of them to win. That may be unrealistic, I realize, but neither candidate speaks to my principles, beliefs, priorities, and goals.
So then I’m told: It’s the American system. Take it or leave it. And I suppose I’d like to leave it, meaning I’ll vote Green. And then I’m told that’s a vote for Trump! Or I’m told that’s a wasted vote.
So the only “valid” vote is for Harris–or Trump. But each side pretty much hates the other, so how is a vote for either “valid”?
Because both parties take unaccountable dark money, both are corrupted, both don’t answer to the people, both are tools of the plutocrats.
If I want to embrace and defend democracy, why would I vote for either of these parties?
And the usual answer is: Because Harris (or Trump) is the lesser evil. But does voting for evil ever make sense? Shouldn’t Americans be able to vote for the greater good?
That’s a headline that proves once again that America is led by the best and brightest. (Sarcasm alert.)
Vladimir Putin has already said that long-range weapons striking targets in Russia means war between Russia and NATO. I don’t think he’s bluffing. And, lest we forget, Russia has nearly 6000 nuclear warheads in its inventory.
Why is the U.S. and NATO allowing Ukraine to use missiles that can strike targets deep into Russian territory? The short answer is that Ukraine is losing the war. But any escalation by Ukraine can be matched (and over-matched) by Russia. The most likely scenario is an even more devastated Ukraine. The worst-case scenario is World War III.
Wars are made by fools with stars on their shoulders and produce more fools, especially in government circles. Ukraine isn’t going to win the war by launching Storm Shadow missiles 150 miles into Russia. More attacks on Russia are likely to reinforce Putin’s rule than to weaken it.
Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to lose more territory to Russian forces in the east, as this map (courtesy of the NYT) shows.
In a war that’s now lasted more than two and a half years, we’ve been told repeatedly that new “magical” weapons will make all the difference for Ukraine, whether Leopard and Challenger and Abrams tanks or F-16 fighter jets or ATACMS or what-have-you. Yet the Russia-Ukraine War is largely an old-fashioned infantry and artillery war, a land war, an attritional war, in which Ukraine is slowly being worn down.
Long-range missiles launched into Russia aren’t going to turn the tide in Ukraine’s favor. But they may provoke a devastating response from Russia that could provoke a far wider conflict. And for what, exactly?
Bracing Views 