Is Trump Flirting With Buyers' Remorse? (1)

That was the subject of discussion between Danny Davis and two of his guests today: Douglas Macgregor and Patrick Henningsen. It should be no surprise to readers that the discussion centered around Trump’s appointees. To be perfectly frank, I have no handle on how closely the general public is actually following Trump’s swift presentation of key appointees. In particular, while Trump did attract support during the campaign with an anti-war message, the election was—as is usual with all US elections—largely decided on domestic issues. The fact that Trump’s most controversial appointees have largely been in the foreign policy area therefore raises the question of how much of the public is paying much, if any, attention.

Nevertheless, all questions of qualifications aside, two of Trump’s key appointees have wasted no time making public statements that are at odds with the anti-war appeal that Trump clearly made during his campaign. Mike Waltz, who will take the powerful position of National Security Adviser, raised eyebrows by openly stating that he is “hand in glove, one team” with Hillary acolyte Jake Sullivan. Did Trump’s base really vote for Hillary Lite in foreign policy?

Just as bad, or worse, was Sebastian Gorka—another high level national security appointee. Gorka actually paraphrased Trump’s own embarrassing, but openly expressed, position on twisting Putin’s arm to settle with Zelensky. As if nothing has changed since Trump was in the WH, escalating the march to war with sanctions against Russia out the wazoo and upping the ante of weapons systems being sent to Ukraine.

The problem with this is that, even if so far not too many people are paying attention, events are not waiting for Trump’s inauguration. The Zhou regime is busily escalating and Russia is responding. Things could get out of control, but where is Trump? Is he trying to play this cautiously, for fear of a Russia Hoax Redux? He didn’t seem afraid of that during the campaign, when he claimed he’d get a peace settlement with Russia “in 24 hours.” What’s he up to? Can’t he enforce some discipline on his appointees? After all, he will be held accountable for their statements. As it stands, their statements are throwing up roadblocks to any peace settlement—if that’s what Trump really wants.

Col Douglas Macgregor: The TERMINAL PHASE of the Ukraine Russia War

DD: In fact President Biden--this is in the Washington Post, just this morning--even though his term is coming to an end he's now trying to rush stuff in and saying, 'Yeah, as soon as we can, before Trump comes into office, we have to get as much stuff to Ukraine as we can.' What is Biden trying to accomplish by getting this stuff into Ukraine before he leaves office?

DM: Clearly he's trying to tie Trump's hands. He's trying to make it impossible for Donald Trump to chart a new course in American foreign and defense policy. The bad news is, based on the most recent remarks by this new National Security Advisor Waltz, there doesn't appear to be a determination to make any changes that make sense. We've heard from him, we've heard from Gorka--the new Deputy National Security Adviser--that we're going to demand things of the Russians and push them to do things, and if they fail to respond then we'll just turn on the spigot and dump more money and equipment and capabilities--supposedly--into western Ukraine. Actually, the whole thing is an exercise in self-delusion. We don't have much to send and if we send much more we won't have anything to use if we should need it.

DD: For those who may have missed it, this is still a head scratcher to me, here is Sebastian Gorka making that comment you just mentioned:

I'll give one tip away that the president has mentioned. "[Trump] will say to that murderous former KGB Colonel [Putin], that thug who runs the Russian Federation: 'You will negotiate now or the aid that we have given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts.' That's how he will force those gentlemen [Putin and Zelensky] to come to an arrangement that stops the bloodshed."

Saying something like that from inside Trump's Inner Circle! That is so detached from reality or acknowledges anything you just mentioned about the growing Russian side and how [the Russians] don't have to negotiate from a position of weakness or are subject to that kind of pressure. One wonders what Trump is actually trying to do!

The real question is this. Gorka is basically—although with the addition of abusive rhetoric—parroting Trump’s openly stated strategy for forcing Putin to do his (Trump’s) will. Trump owns that much—but does Trump still hold that position? If not, why doesn’t he rebuke Gorka?

Regarding Davis’ reference to “the growing Russian side”, he’s referring to Macgregor’s earlier exposition of the new Russian force dispositions. Macgregor is of the opinion that Russian may be planning to end the war sooner rather than later—with a view to pivoting to NATO, which has been rattling their paltry sabers.

DM: I'm sure that there are many people who voted for Donald Trump who are sort of scratching their heads. Others are beginning to say, 'I didn't vote for this! I voted for something very different--who is really in charge?' All these questions keep coming up because most of these cabinet picks--there are some exceptions, but many of them are pretty disturbing. I think we're going to see evidence for that [public reaction] in the weeks and months ahead if if nothing changes. And I don't think much will [change].

...

This is the time for President Trump to tell everyone that's working for him: 'Shut up!’

Or even that line Trump became famous for? You’re fired!

He should take the mic and he should say, number one, 'I didn't start this war, I don't want this war, and I want to end this war. Period. Any further discussion of this until I am in office is counterproductive. I will talk directly to President Putin and we will find a solution and bring this tragic war to a close.' I think he should do some other things. I think he should suspend all aid immediately and stop this mass destruction and annihilation of the Ukrainian people by their own government. He should suspend all that aid and then he should withdraw all US personnel from Ukraine--in and out of uniform, whether they're intelligence operatives or anything else. All US citizens out. Do those things and that will signal to the Russians that we are very serious and then they will take us seriously. But right now with vice admiral whatever his name was, saying ridiculous things about our readiness to engage in nuclear war, or somebody like Gorka--newly announced radio personality speaking for the president, scary thought--or Waltz talking about no daylight between him and Sullivan. Good Lord! I mean, why did we all flock to the polls and vote for President Trump? We might as well bail out of this election and start over.

Following up on Macgregor’s account of Russia’s new offensive preparations, as well as how Russia might respond to additional ATACMS attacks from the US:

DM: The first thing that the Russians are going to do now--with a vengeance--is eliminate the logistical support structure--what's left of it--and that means. destroy transportation networks primarily, rail and secondarily good roads where trucks can carry ammunition and replacements forward--that's going to happen--command and control centers, clearly they are going to be destroyed. Anything, anywhere, that can support an aircraft, any landing strips, any airports, any airfields--they will be destroyed. That is critical to the advance of Russian forces. The Russians will move their air defense forward, their integrated air defenses, to cover the entirety of Western Ukraine. Before they're through, everything will be deliberately moved. That's how you avoid casualties, because if you don't systematically move forward your integrated air defenses--and theirs are far more elaborate than anything we have--you risk taking unnecessary casualties. Right now, we know from studies that have been performed at NATO headquarters and elsewhere that we'd be fortunate to defend 5% of NATO territory in terms of air and missile defense.

Those things will happen first. If we show no signs of relinquishing or changing our position or threatening further, then I think the Russians could move on to destroying positions in Romania, certainly in Poland, parts of Lithuania, no question about it. Of course the West will argue, 'This is the evil Russians attacking, we must go now to a nuclear holocaust in terms of righting the wrongs. It's crazy. I hope we don't. That's why this needs to end. If ever we needed strong presidential leadership in Washington--to step forward and say: 'Enough, over, done, stop'--this is the time.

By the way, Gilbert Doctorow agrees with Macgregor that Russia would like nothing better than an excuse to strike Poland and/or Romania. Specifically, the usually restrained Doctorow thinks that “the Polish elites are begging for a bomb on their heads.”

I have to agree with Macgregor, here, with regard to his call for leadership from Trump. I think Trump needs to show leadership at this time—not waiting for inauguration. I understand the risks involved, but he can certainly enforce discipline on his team. But he needs to find a way, whether personally or through a significant proxy, of addressing the outrageous escalations by an outgoing president. Unless … Trump actually thinks this escalation will be the big stick leading to his triumphant great peace deal? I shudder to think that.

I did just a very brief transcript from the Henningsen video, but Henningsen raises serious questions. Primarily, where is all this going? Right now the US is in a conventional arms race with Russia—and losing badly. Rather than stepping back and taking stock, the Anglo-Zionists are doubling down on preparation for a new Cold War—or maybe worse. They’re preparing for war after Ukraine. As we’ve discussed in the past, the military buildup in Scandinavia is all about establishing the threat of a naval blockade of northern Russia—the Baltic Sea and the Arctic Sea. It’s hard to imagine that Russia will stand for this, and with the Oreshnik missile they have the means to do something about this threat.

Russia's Oreshnik Missile: It's Worse than You think for NATO w/Patrick Henningsen

If you go by Julian Assange's thesis--which is that the point isn't who wins the war; the point is that the war continues and that the military escalation and arms race continues--then they [the Anglo-Zionists] could declare victory and share prices can can remain high, and isn't that what it's all about? The S&P 500 and share prices of major contractors? Let me tell you something else. There's 47 new US bases going into Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. 47 in Scandinavia. That will be the most militarized region on the planet, even more than the Middle East! That's where the US establishment is investing its money as we speak. Right now. So, whatever the result of this is in Ukraine, this is not over. Because the money is parked in a long-term escalation making Europe now much more volatile in a Cold War 2.0 situation. Or maybe worse.

...

Will Donald Trump be able to have the courage, the conviction, to stand up against the war machine? He has a mandate. Will he be able to execute it? That's the big question.

Of course there’s a big difference between the current Ukraine war and a “next time” led by NATO. Next time around there won’t be any proxies. It will be the youth of NATO countries who will be eliminated.