Displaying posts published in

March 2022

Russia vs. Ukraine: Round I Who won? Kenneth R. Timmerman

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/russia-vs-ukraine-round-i-kenneth-r-timmerman/

Public perception of Putin’s war on Ukraine crystallized over the weekend, no thanks to the actions of President-inept Joe Biden.

While Biden was relaxing at home in Delaware, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenski was in the trenches with his troops, sharing grub, talking to reporters, and by all appearances unconcerned by reports that Putin had sent 400 assassins into Kiev to kill him.

“I need ammunition, not a ride,” Zelenski told Western journos, who asked him if he was ready to accept Biden’s offer to airlift him out of his country.

It was a Churchillian moment, and it must have galled Putin into realizing that his cakewalk into Ukraine wasn’t happening as planned.

Ukrainian soldiers decimated a Russian armored convoy over the weekend, and the much-awaited assault on Kiev appeared to have stalled. Captured Russian conscripts appeared bewildered in front of cameras, saying they had been told they were embarking on training exercises, not the invasion of a neighboring country. Thousands openly protested Putin’s war in Moscow’s Red Square.

While events in Ukraine remain shrouded in the fog of war, one thing we haven’t seen – and we would have seen it, had it occurred – is a Russian “shock and awe” bombing campaign, such as the US carried out before invading Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

OUR SILENCE IN EXCHANGE FOR A NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEAL WITH IRAN:COL.(RET.) WES MARTIN

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/02/25/our-silence-in-exchange-for-a-nuclear-weapons-deal-with-iran/

Politically suffering from America’s debacle extraction out of Afghanistan and his inability to deter Putin’s aggression on Ukraine, President Biden is in search of recognition for some positive accomplishment. Problem is he is focusing this effort on resurrecting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, otherwise known as the Nuclear Weapons Deal.

President Trump was justified in pulling out from JCPOA for two reasons. First, from the very beginning, Iran never honored a single element of the deal. Second, Trump’s predecessor ignored mandated consent.

By claiming JCPOA was an agreement and not a treaty, President Obama approved it as an executive decision rather than receive Senate approval as stated in Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution. A treaty by any other name is still a treaty. There is no reason to believe that Biden will honor the U.S. Constitution any more than did his former boss.

Biden will also follow Obama’s policy of ignoring anything negative about Iran during the negotiations. Iran had basically a free run to commit terrorist acts throughout the world without much attention paid to it from 2009 to the first month of 2017. Iran also had $140 billion of frozen assets freed up by the Obama Administration and a relaxation of previous sanctions.

The Long Shadow of Versailles It’s time to abandon the “new world order” happy talk. Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/long-shadow-versailles-bruce-thornton/

Or we can continue with diplomatic bluster, “new world order” happy talk, and feeble sanctions, in which case we will just be managing our decline.

In 1919 the Versailles Treaty established in international law and global institutions two ideals that have framed Western foreign policy ever since. The first is the elevation of national self-determination and democratic government as the default goods for all the world’s peoples. The other is the notion that supranational institutions, international laws, and multinational treaties and covenants are the best means for adjudicating peacefully international disputes and conflicts.

Russia’s current violent, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is merely the latest example of a century’s worth of repudiation of these ideals that still shape modern foreign policy––a challenge that, if we’re lucky, may lead to a long-needed revision of this ideal of a “rules-based international order” and its dubious foundational assumptions.

American president Woodrow Wilson in his Fourteen Points and speeches during World War I articulated these ideals. In 1918 he told Congress, “National aspirations must be accepted; peoples may now be dominated only by their own consent.” This principle perforce was opposed to colonial empires, as Wilson made clear in the Fourteen Points: “The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by, which makes it possible for every nation whose purposes are consistent with justice and the peace of the world to avow now or at any other time the objects it has in view.”

Of course, as we’ve seen over the past century, what the great diversity of global peoples and cultures mean by “justice” differs considerably, especially regarding the use of force to realize national ambitions at the expense of other nations. Such ideals have been vulnerable as well to the duplicitous diplomacy, propaganda, and aggression of ambitious states. Hitler brilliantly turned this ideal against its champions like France and England during the Sudetenland crisis of September, 1938. After all, didn’t the 3 million alleged ethnic Germans stranded in the new state of Czechoslovakia after the war deserve their “national aspirations” to be “accepted”? Why should they, as Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels lied during the crisis, have to tolerate the “brutal treatment of women and children of German blood” at the hands of alien Czechs?

Puppeteers and Puppets: America’s Dark Money Masquerade and Other Questionable Conduct by Lawrence Kadish

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18282/puppeteers-puppets-dark-money

Are union moguls, puppeteers, power-players and profiteers assaulting the Constitution and US election laws?

“Dark money groups,” according to Open Secrets, a nonprofit that tracks political campaign financing and lobbying, “spends millions to shape our elections without revealing where their money comes from.”

About lobbying, they wrote, “Companies, labor unions, trade associations and other influential organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington’s legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house.”

The freedom to give unlimited amounts to elections began with the Supreme Court in 2010, with the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The justices decided that, according to the First Amendment, political spending is an extension of free speech, and that corporations and unions could therefore give unlimited amounts to political campaigns.

Regrettably, nine years later, the Brennan Center for Justice wrote:

“The justices who voted with the major­ity assumed that inde­pend­ent spend­ing cannot be corrupt and that the spend­ing would be trans­par­ent, but both assump­tions have proven to be incor­rect.