Today seems to be a bit of a slow news day so far. Mostly what I'm seeing is commentary on the current situation--the usual American political wrangles, all working up to Election 2022, the Russia - Ukraine conflict with the various ancillary dust-ups (Lithuania being the most recent). Fundamentally, however, little has changed or developed.
How does Garland's visit to Ukraine fit into things? Ostensibly it is in relation to the investigation of potential war crimes - presumably in typical Garland fashion, a very one-sided investigation that probably considers the Russians to be presumed guilty of whatever war crimes they stand accused of while not even considering the possibility that Ukrainians may have committed any. But as Covid & Coffee discussed this morning at
"war crimes" would not appear to be in the US Attorney General's role, and making an unannounced trip to a war zone for a one-hour meeting makes no sense even it this was in his jurisdiction.
I'm fairly certain that the real purpose of the trip is not to investigate the corruption in Ukraine that might well involve the Biden, Pelosi, Romney, their families, etc. IT would also seem far fetched that he hopes to uncover something to use against Trump. So what would he be going there for?
The Biden Administration thought the Russians would be quaking in the boots, with the threat of action by AG Garland.
Contrast how the US treated the kidnappers of US Citizens, vs what Russia did in Lebanon. After the Russians kidnapped a relative of the kidnapper, and tortured them, no more Russians were abducted...
And poked the Dragon by bringing up Taiwan, and how preemptive action should be taken against China. My take it guarantees more support of Russia by China.
Tit for tat support and backing assumptions to be tested? I think not. U watch. EU will run for the door. Plus climate change, transgenderism, CRT etc will prevent this as the “every man for themselves” mentality takes hold. That and a woke military we’ve created who will kindly hold the door open.
I’m very concerned about the domestic fallout from this foolhardiness. Don’t see how we avoid a recession, regardless of what the senile incompetent in the Oval Office contends, food shortages looming on the horizon, supply chain issues that get worse every day, inflation that’s not going away anytime soon, skyrocketing energy prices and the list goes on.
I’m sure these geniuses have carefully thought through their plans for dealing with a world order in which the dollar is no longer the reserve currency, along with a political reality where the rest of the world says, to borrow a phrase from one the bright lights of this fiasco, “F**k the USA!” When all of the unintended consequences of their colossal stupidity begin to rain down upon this country, what will they say to the citizens, “ooopsie”?
I’m convinced that they have no clue about what is heading our way. Nor do they have any idea what the ultimate cost of their unbridled hubris will entail.
Well, whatever happens we can all rest assured that it will be attributed with the right pronouns.
The "elites" probably thought out their aims, but not the consequences. It's like living in a parallel universe right now, living, breathing and moving among people who are clueless about reality. Hey, but at least Tik tok has some great vids!
How do we the people of the United States benefit from our nation's government policies of world hegemony? Cui bono? It seems that the USA has picked up where the British Empire left off. The commoners in Britain were sacrificed by their elites to build and maintain the Empire, we Americans are being similarly abused by our ruling elites. Would it not have been better had we built up our own economic and military power and set the example of minding our own business? And to show the other nations that the rule of law is our way of life.
Washington's expectations about this war are turning out to be incorrect, but Trump was spot-on. Trump also said words to the effect that "Putin is to be condemned for launching this war", and were he President it wouldn't have happened, but as our feckless Administration let it, and maybe even encouraged it to happen, it was genius on the part of Putin. If "a genuine independent free press is largely disappearing, falling into the hands of corporate-dominated media close to policy circles," it is also true they have lost their power to influence thinking Americans.
There is a whole class of commentators/observers/opinionators who struggle with their inclination to 'tell the truth' but are afraid that if they do they will offend the Establishment. The same Establishment which might one day hire them and pay them if they don't wander too far off the reservation. One way to deal with this problem is to attempt to tell the truth but to balance it out with a few gratuitous slams at...for example, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. The theory is that you can tell the truth as long as you prove you are safely 'on the reservation'. Andy McCarthy at National Review comes to mind. Victor Davis Hanson is a good conservative and a smart guy who feels it necessary to repeatedly label Putin as a madman. Maria Bartiromo is another. There are many others. Perhaps Graham Fuller is another.
The number of people who have "damned Trump with faint praise" and "praised Trump with faint damns" is legion - both in the media and in both major political parties. Shows you how the Washington establishment denizens of all professions like to hedge their bets and will turn on a dime when they sense the direction of the wind shifting.
Cassander, I am not familiar with Fuller, but his analysis seems rigourous and spot-on. His first point takes aim at one we know ( not-Trump!):
Putin is to be condemned for launching this war– as is virtually any leader who launches any war. Putin can be termed a war criminal–in good company with George W. Bush who has killed vastly greater numbers than Putin.
Disagree totally about Putin. You can love or hate the guy, but he had no choice but to attack Ukraine. In fact, you could say he has shown (and continues to show) remarkable restraint. The West, and in particular the insane neocons like McStain, have been laughing in his face since 2008. If Putin had been doing 10% in Mexico of what the neocons have been doing in the Ukraine, we would have been in WW3 years ago.
Steghorn, I agree completely with you that Putin was continually goaded and provoked by US/Nato, even up to Feb 23, to launch this war. Our delusional, power-hungry Neocons hopefully are not sleeping much as the tide turns…I was just trying to see a glimmer of sense (?!) coming from a Cold War era psyche, like Fuller, who admitted that GWB has caused even more death than Putin. But as you point out, different wars and certainly different causes.
The more I read and watch and listen, the more I am tending to believe that the US instigated this war and left Putin with no option. His alternative was to let the global hegemon continue inexorably to move on him. That doesn't mean I like it. But its a very different situation from W Bush who lied about his reasons for attacking Iraq.
'One of the most disturbing features of this US-Russian struggle in Ukraine has been the utter corruption of independent media. The West has never before witnessed such a blanket imposition by one country’s ideologically-driven geopolitical perspective at home.' True except for how the same political party has used covid 19 for a litany of non-medical controls. (As I wrote that a second exception came to mind. The Democrats use of 'Climate Change' to impose a Liberal ideological wish list which is unrelated to climate.) Now, covid 19: April 2, 2020 California Governor Newsom: "Yes, We Will Use Coronavirus to 'Reimagine a Progressive Era' “There is opportunity for reimagining a progressive era as it pertains to capitalism,” absolutely we see this as an opportunity to reshape the way we do business and how we govern." Lest anyone think that is an outlier: March 22, 2020 "Democrat House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn said that the Coronavirus Relief Bill is "a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision,”. An honest media would see the Democratic Party almost disappear in a couple of election cycles. Bottom line is that if the truth served the Democrats then they would use it. But since it doesn't they don't.
Overall, this term has been encouraging from the standpoint of limiting government. Some big cases still coming up, with good prospects--if we're to believe commentators.
I have high hopes for this case. There have been two cases, at least, this term that limited the ability of admin agencies to regulate unfettered, so to speak. This case is the big one. There are at least 5 justices with a history of real concern about this, plus Roberts. I say "plus Roberts" not because of his philosophy on this issue, but because he tends to be a "gradualist". However, in those earlier two case this term, there was even some support from some of the 3 liberals. The whole issue is whether courts should defer to agency judgment.
1. Longstanding Anglo-American policy to dominate Eurasia as a means of cornering global resource markets and trade routes (extension of the "Great Game" between Britain and Russia dating to the 1800s later codified by Mackinder and more recently Brzezinski)
2. Post-Cold War American ambition to create a Russian client state (this was in progress through the corrupt Russian oligarchs in the nineties, but Putin put an end to it)
3. NATO (read: U.S.) policy to limit Russian influence in Europe
4. Expand American hegemony and provide a new well to insulate the dollar against unchecked inflationary printing
5. Protect U.S. elites from exposure of corrupt laundering of foreign aid in Ukraine
6. Protect U.S. from exposure of illegal bioweapons research
7. Enlarge globalist footprint by defeating nationalist philosophy of Putin
8. Accelerate WEF plans to implement feudalism on global scale
Take your pick. Only note that Democracy and territorial integrity are not on the list.
Also note that every single one of these reasons are in play to one degree or another.
Why now?
1. Provocation: expanding NATO, various regime change ops (some successful like 2014 Ukraine), war against ethnic Russians, etc.
2. Opportunity for Russia: weak and incompetent U.S. president
3. Opportunity for WEF: western world brought to brink of collapse by pandemic
4. Opportunity for Central banks: fiat currencies near collapse
Do you expect there to be only one reason for this war?
Honestly, I may have added the corruption and labs for quantity - they only occurred to me right before I was going to hit Post. But isn't it funny that those are the ones that are explicitly documented in recent history? We have a Resident who is on the record bragging about using foreign aid as a stick to preserve his own corrupt gains through his son and the biolabs have already blown up in our faces.
The rest is not hypothesis - at least not of the SWAG variety. The war doesn't need one cause, and it doesn't need one faction. The elites are racing to the top of a greased pole; Russia is one competitor they can ally against, but we will see them clashing over their differences as we get closer to the cliff. There is plenty of documentation and commentary about Anglo and American designs on world hegemony; about the role of the Central Banks in world affairs; and about the rise and ambitions of the WEF.
Likewise, the timing of this war as a function of a weak U.S. president, the approaching demise of the dollar and other fiat currencies, and post-pandemic ratcheting of our crisis posture has also been well canvassed.
How does Garland's visit to Ukraine fit into things? Ostensibly it is in relation to the investigation of potential war crimes - presumably in typical Garland fashion, a very one-sided investigation that probably considers the Russians to be presumed guilty of whatever war crimes they stand accused of while not even considering the possibility that Ukrainians may have committed any. But as Covid & Coffee discussed this morning at
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-wednesday-june-dd6
"war crimes" would not appear to be in the US Attorney General's role, and making an unannounced trip to a war zone for a one-hour meeting makes no sense even it this was in his jurisdiction.
I'm fairly certain that the real purpose of the trip is not to investigate the corruption in Ukraine that might well involve the Biden, Pelosi, Romney, their families, etc. IT would also seem far fetched that he hopes to uncover something to use against Trump. So what would he be going there for?
Garland's visit probably is really about Russian Charges against the US Mercenaries.
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/merrik-garland-visits-ukraine/
The Biden Administration thought the Russians would be quaking in the boots, with the threat of action by AG Garland.
Contrast how the US treated the kidnappers of US Citizens, vs what Russia did in Lebanon. After the Russians kidnapped a relative of the kidnapper, and tortured them, no more Russians were abducted...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-01-07-mn-13892-story.html
Ukraine banned their main opposition party and seized all their assets.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-bans-main-opposition-party-seizes-all-its-assets
And poked the Dragon by bringing up Taiwan, and how preemptive action should be taken against China. My take it guarantees more support of Russia by China.
As a European, I am more interested in how this affects the EU. Hopefully, as each nation fights for its own survival, the EU will fall apart.
Tit for tat support and backing assumptions to be tested? I think not. U watch. EU will run for the door. Plus climate change, transgenderism, CRT etc will prevent this as the “every man for themselves” mentality takes hold. That and a woke military we’ve created who will kindly hold the door open.
I’m very concerned about the domestic fallout from this foolhardiness. Don’t see how we avoid a recession, regardless of what the senile incompetent in the Oval Office contends, food shortages looming on the horizon, supply chain issues that get worse every day, inflation that’s not going away anytime soon, skyrocketing energy prices and the list goes on.
I’m sure these geniuses have carefully thought through their plans for dealing with a world order in which the dollar is no longer the reserve currency, along with a political reality where the rest of the world says, to borrow a phrase from one the bright lights of this fiasco, “F**k the USA!” When all of the unintended consequences of their colossal stupidity begin to rain down upon this country, what will they say to the citizens, “ooopsie”?
I’m convinced that they have no clue about what is heading our way. Nor do they have any idea what the ultimate cost of their unbridled hubris will entail.
Well, whatever happens we can all rest assured that it will be attributed with the right pronouns.
The "elites" probably thought out their aims, but not the consequences. It's like living in a parallel universe right now, living, breathing and moving among people who are clueless about reality. Hey, but at least Tik tok has some great vids!
Yep, normalcy bias is alive and well unfortunately.
How do we the people of the United States benefit from our nation's government policies of world hegemony? Cui bono? It seems that the USA has picked up where the British Empire left off. The commoners in Britain were sacrificed by their elites to build and maintain the Empire, we Americans are being similarly abused by our ruling elites. Would it not have been better had we built up our own economic and military power and set the example of minding our own business? And to show the other nations that the rule of law is our way of life.
@Sarcastic
Cui bono?
I've been asking myself that question for years now.
Take the U.S. so-called War on Terror, declared, ostensibly, to prevent another 9/11.
According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the War on Terror has resulted in
• Over 929,000 people dead due to direct war violence, and several times as many due to the reverberating effects of war
• Over 387,000 civilians killed as a result of the fighting
• 38 million war refugees and displaced persons
• US government counterterror activities conducted in 85 countries
• Systemic violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the U.S. and abroad.
It looks to me like the U.S. War on Terror has caused no small amount of 'terror' itself. Which of course raises the same question.
Cui bono?
Perhaps the question answers itself...
The Pentagon has spent over $14 trillion since the invasion of Afghanistan, one-third to one-half to military contractors
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
And now it is Suez '56 time for America. The baton is being passed.
Washington's expectations about this war are turning out to be incorrect, but Trump was spot-on. Trump also said words to the effect that "Putin is to be condemned for launching this war", and were he President it wouldn't have happened, but as our feckless Administration let it, and maybe even encouraged it to happen, it was genius on the part of Putin. If "a genuine independent free press is largely disappearing, falling into the hands of corporate-dominated media close to policy circles," it is also true they have lost their power to influence thinking Americans.
Not only that but where’s the skepticism and need to verify?
There is a whole class of commentators/observers/opinionators who struggle with their inclination to 'tell the truth' but are afraid that if they do they will offend the Establishment. The same Establishment which might one day hire them and pay them if they don't wander too far off the reservation. One way to deal with this problem is to attempt to tell the truth but to balance it out with a few gratuitous slams at...for example, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. The theory is that you can tell the truth as long as you prove you are safely 'on the reservation'. Andy McCarthy at National Review comes to mind. Victor Davis Hanson is a good conservative and a smart guy who feels it necessary to repeatedly label Putin as a madman. Maria Bartiromo is another. There are many others. Perhaps Graham Fuller is another.
The number of people who have "damned Trump with faint praise" and "praised Trump with faint damns" is legion - both in the media and in both major political parties. Shows you how the Washington establishment denizens of all professions like to hedge their bets and will turn on a dime when they sense the direction of the wind shifting.
Cassander, I am not familiar with Fuller, but his analysis seems rigourous and spot-on. His first point takes aim at one we know ( not-Trump!):
Putin is to be condemned for launching this war– as is virtually any leader who launches any war. Putin can be termed a war criminal–in good company with George W. Bush who has killed vastly greater numbers than Putin.
Touché.
Disagree totally about Putin. You can love or hate the guy, but he had no choice but to attack Ukraine. In fact, you could say he has shown (and continues to show) remarkable restraint. The West, and in particular the insane neocons like McStain, have been laughing in his face since 2008. If Putin had been doing 10% in Mexico of what the neocons have been doing in the Ukraine, we would have been in WW3 years ago.
Steghorn, I agree completely with you that Putin was continually goaded and provoked by US/Nato, even up to Feb 23, to launch this war. Our delusional, power-hungry Neocons hopefully are not sleeping much as the tide turns…I was just trying to see a glimmer of sense (?!) coming from a Cold War era psyche, like Fuller, who admitted that GWB has caused even more death than Putin. But as you point out, different wars and certainly different causes.
@ML
The more I read and watch and listen, the more I am tending to believe that the US instigated this war and left Putin with no option. His alternative was to let the global hegemon continue inexorably to move on him. That doesn't mean I like it. But its a very different situation from W Bush who lied about his reasons for attacking Iraq.
Touche’
'One of the most disturbing features of this US-Russian struggle in Ukraine has been the utter corruption of independent media. The West has never before witnessed such a blanket imposition by one country’s ideologically-driven geopolitical perspective at home.' True except for how the same political party has used covid 19 for a litany of non-medical controls. (As I wrote that a second exception came to mind. The Democrats use of 'Climate Change' to impose a Liberal ideological wish list which is unrelated to climate.) Now, covid 19: April 2, 2020 California Governor Newsom: "Yes, We Will Use Coronavirus to 'Reimagine a Progressive Era' “There is opportunity for reimagining a progressive era as it pertains to capitalism,” absolutely we see this as an opportunity to reshape the way we do business and how we govern." Lest anyone think that is an outlier: March 22, 2020 "Democrat House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn said that the Coronavirus Relief Bill is "a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision,”. An honest media would see the Democratic Party almost disappear in a couple of election cycles. Bottom line is that if the truth served the Democrats then they would use it. But since it doesn't they don't.
True. But the MSM will be forced to face reality too.
If it’s corrupt then not independent.
Protect the vote processes.
Europe is floundering:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYQCb3qrBpo
Yep. As is America. Decadence has a way of doing that to nations.
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2022/06/supreme-court-is-shrinking-government.html
Don’s always a good read. Lays things out simply. Also has good advertisements on his blog. ;~)
Overall, this term has been encouraging from the standpoint of limiting government. Some big cases still coming up, with good prospects--if we're to believe commentators.
This seemed like avery good write-up on WV vs EPA, but only had time to skim it on my lunch bk today. Fingers & toes x'd!
https://www.eenews.net/articles/supreme-court-climate-case-might-end-regulation/
I have high hopes for this case. There have been two cases, at least, this term that limited the ability of admin agencies to regulate unfettered, so to speak. This case is the big one. There are at least 5 justices with a history of real concern about this, plus Roberts. I say "plus Roberts" not because of his philosophy on this issue, but because he tends to be a "gradualist". However, in those earlier two case this term, there was even some support from some of the 3 liberals. The whole issue is whether courts should defer to agency judgment.
1. Longstanding Anglo-American policy to dominate Eurasia as a means of cornering global resource markets and trade routes (extension of the "Great Game" between Britain and Russia dating to the 1800s later codified by Mackinder and more recently Brzezinski)
2. Post-Cold War American ambition to create a Russian client state (this was in progress through the corrupt Russian oligarchs in the nineties, but Putin put an end to it)
3. NATO (read: U.S.) policy to limit Russian influence in Europe
4. Expand American hegemony and provide a new well to insulate the dollar against unchecked inflationary printing
5. Protect U.S. elites from exposure of corrupt laundering of foreign aid in Ukraine
6. Protect U.S. from exposure of illegal bioweapons research
7. Enlarge globalist footprint by defeating nationalist philosophy of Putin
8. Accelerate WEF plans to implement feudalism on global scale
Take your pick. Only note that Democracy and territorial integrity are not on the list.
Also note that every single one of these reasons are in play to one degree or another.
Why now?
1. Provocation: expanding NATO, various regime change ops (some successful like 2014 Ukraine), war against ethnic Russians, etc.
2. Opportunity for Russia: weak and incompetent U.S. president
3. Opportunity for WEF: western world brought to brink of collapse by pandemic
4. Opportunity for Central banks: fiat currencies near collapse
Find villain that is politically acceptable to blame economic pain on, instead of Western policy decisions that are responsible.
Putin / Russia checks all boxes - White, Christian, straight, anti Gay, nationalistic.
A perfect two minutes of hate target. 1984 was not supposed to be a how to instruction manual, but rather a warning.
You asked Why and Why Now
Do you expect there to be only one reason for this war?
Honestly, I may have added the corruption and labs for quantity - they only occurred to me right before I was going to hit Post. But isn't it funny that those are the ones that are explicitly documented in recent history? We have a Resident who is on the record bragging about using foreign aid as a stick to preserve his own corrupt gains through his son and the biolabs have already blown up in our faces.
The rest is not hypothesis - at least not of the SWAG variety. The war doesn't need one cause, and it doesn't need one faction. The elites are racing to the top of a greased pole; Russia is one competitor they can ally against, but we will see them clashing over their differences as we get closer to the cliff. There is plenty of documentation and commentary about Anglo and American designs on world hegemony; about the role of the Central Banks in world affairs; and about the rise and ambitions of the WEF.
Likewise, the timing of this war as a function of a weak U.S. president, the approaching demise of the dollar and other fiat currencies, and post-pandemic ratcheting of our crisis posture has also been well canvassed.
So who’s to blame? State dept, Pentagon, Langley?
My view is differ than yours based on Langley. I see the State Dept as the "coup" engineers.
As in the plenary authority of President Trump to conduct foreign affairs? Just sayin'. Life is complicated.
I would take another look at the donors and follow the money. Somebody is/was funding the Clinton Foundation, and the Brookings, etc.