First up, I need to thank the commenter who provided the Tucker link. As too often, I can’t find that comment, so whoever it was, feel free to take credit.
This is 20 minutes of sheer brilliance. Tucker is focused on the interaction between domestic and foreign policy—and who these people are who are trying to distract us from seeing the truth. If you check, you’ll find that they’re the usual hide-the-truth-from-the-masses suspects:
Clarice Feldman writes about
Whatever side you’re on in this issue, there’s little doubt that the entire Green agenda—advanced by the Globalist WEF—factors into it. We need to bear that in mind. Will an awakening in that regard prove to be a salutary side effect? Commenter Dave cites Steve Turley in support of that possibility:
"Today march 24th 2022 liberal globalism officially collapsed; you can mark your calendar on that one. The whole geopolitical project beginning in 1991 with the fall of the soviet union and Francis Fukuyama's neocon fantasy at the end of history where he envisioned that the entire world would now turn to a global neoliberal order that has since culminated in an epidemic of wokeness...that vision died last night and Russian president Vladimir Putin killed it."
While I don’t necessarily agree with everything Turley has to say, I very much like his bottom line. It’s up to us to build on the ruins of the global woke order.
Next, via David Stockman, I’ll simply quote George Kennan, the legendary ambassador to Russia who was also the architect of the Cold War. Kennan was dismayed and alarmed at what transpired when the Cold War came to an end. While he doesn’t say this in this passage, I suggest that Trump’s policy preference was based on this insight: Eurasia—which, for practical purposes is composed of Russia and China—is the single most dominant geographical region on the planet. While North America may come close, the US—simply by virtue of distance—is limited in its ability to affect a united Eurasia. The smart strategy is to seek a cooperative relationship with one of the two Eurasian powers—not simply to divide and conquer, which isn’t realistic, but for the mutual benefit of the US and the other party. Russia is the best candidate. While there are complications to such a strategy—who ever said life, let alone geopolitics, is simple?—Russia is the best fit. Russia wants to be part of the West. That same cannot be said of China.
So, Kennan, re the planned expansion of NATO right up to Russia’s doorstep:
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.”
“What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,” added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ”X,” defined America’s cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ”I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don’t people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
“And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia,” said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. “It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are – but this is just wrong.”
Finally, in support of the argument that this conflict was eminently avoidable and was not the result of Russian ambitions to reconstitute the Soviet empire, I offer—from all the way back in 2014, the year of the US’ Ukraine coup—an article by John Mearshimer (please—take credit, commenter who linked):
Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault
The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin
Writing in the aftermath of the US overthrow of a Ukrainian president who favored good relations with Russia, Mearshimer writes:
According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.
But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis.
...
Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics.
...
U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. Now that the consequences have been laid bare, it would be an even greater mistake to continue this misbegotten policy.
As Mearshimer demonstrates, ever since the end of the Cold War Russia has been perfectly open about its security concerns—which were heavily focused on a reunited Germany. To Germany’s credit, the Germans showed themselves sensitive to those concerns, but the US—which runs NATO—bulldozed all opposition to its jihad on the former Soviet Union. As far back as 1995 Boris Yeltsin complained bitterly about the US led attack on Serbia, seeing it—correctly—as a preview of the way an enlarged NATO would attempt to throw its weight around.
Mearshimer traces the trail of policy mistakes each US administration has made up to the time of writing—2014. The final straw for Putin came with the Kiev coup:
Although the full extent of U.S. involvement has not yet come to light, it is clear that Washington backed the coup. Nuland and Republican Senator John McCain participated in antigovernment demonstrations, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, proclaimed after Yanukovych’s toppling that it was “a day for the history books.” As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did.
How would the US react to a blatant Russian backed coup in Canada? Not well. So why should we have expected Putin to react any differently than he has, after two decades of in your face provocations from the US?
Unfortunately, the mistakes will continue until the ruling Establishment of the US remains in place and is indifferent to the views of US citizens.
Just realized - All the Democrats in Tuckers video, Pelosia and her attack dogs, due to Trump, have zero credibility with me.
- Pelosi
- shifty - Adam Schiff
- fang fangs boyfriend - Eric Swalwell
I think you mean “because” not until. Nice post.