NATO has awakened a sleeping midget by adding Ukraine as a member in everything but name. This is an alligator mouth, bumblebee ass move because NATO cannot fight a foreign war when it is under attack by the Muslim World from within.
BY DON SURBER ON SUBSTACK
EDITED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CHRONICLES
The USA has borrowed another $60 billion — $60,000,000,000 — to give to Ukraine, a nation known for pretty women and large bribes to the spawn of Biden, Pelosi and other DC scum. Then the Democrats all waved Ukraine flags and patted themselves on the ass for saving democracy and defense contractors.
Mark Tapscott wrote, “There is only one Member of the House of Representatives who was born in Ukraine, Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.). She voted against that $95 billion foreign aid package approved by the lower chamber over the weekend.”
Earlier she said, “If we don’t have proper oversight, we are not going to achieve our goals. We cannot have these never-ending wars.”
But as the leader of this pack of rats in Washington, Obama, said, “Yes we can.”
And yes they are. Vietnam is their model and they have modified it to the point where their defense contractor buddies can sell war materiel to the USA for a war without sending soldiers with them.
It works out well because no Americans are drafted or harmed, the missile merchants are paid, the politicians’ kids (stepkid in John Kerry’s case) collect the kickbacks, and everyone gets to pose with Mister Greenshirt for their re-election ads. For just $10,000 more, he’ll throw in air raid sirens when he strolls with you from the president’s house on Hrushevsky Street.
The downside is Russia is winning the war and the Poles are stuck with millions of Ukrainians — many of them draft resistors who do not want to die for their LBJ, Zelensky. Imagine that.
Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, assessed the situation in Ukraine in a recent newspaper column, “Europe’s war jitters.”
Mark Twain is often quoted as saying, “History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” He might have added that when history does rhyme, the results are often disastrous.
Just as the territorial ambitions of the Axis powers – Germany, Italy, and Japan – set the stage for World War II, the current authoritarian bloc of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea seeks to dismantle the liberal international order. Now, as then, various conflicts around the world could spiral into a worldwide war if military alliances are automatically activated in response to hostile actions by adversaries.
Consider, for example, the very real possibility that former U.S. President Donald Trump will return to the White House in 2025. Given his blithe disregard for Europe’s security, it is clear why European countries, which have relied on the United States for their security since the end of World War II, should be concerned.
But this is not just about Trump. Given China’s growing influence and the subsequent rebalancing of US strategic priorities, even a second Joe Biden term could lead to a reduced American commitment to NATO in favor of AUKUS, the military alliance that he created with Australia and Britain to face China’s threat in the Indo-Pacific. America’s waning interest in Ukraine underscores this shift, with Europe left to fill the resulting security vacuum.
Consequently, fears of an imminent war have seized European capitals. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently said that Europe has entered a “pre-war era,” while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned that a land war on the continent “may not be imminent, but it is not impossible.” Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron has not ruled out the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, and the United Kingdom’s Chief of General Staff, General Patrick Sanders, has called for “national mobilization” and said British citizens must be ready to fight Russia.
While Russia represents a distant threat to countries like Spain and Italy, most EU member states fear that Russian President Vladimir Putin is on their doorstep, highlighting Europe’s lack of strategic autonomy.
McKinsey estimates that European countries saved $8.6 trillion over the past few decades, compared to average defense spending from 1960 to 1992, by downsizing their militaries. Mainly deployed in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, European military forces have been described as “bonsai armies” – miniature versions of real armies, with limited combat experience.
Moreover, given that Europe’s defense industry lags far behind Russia’s, and even more so the U.S.’, building up Europe’s military capabilities will probably take years. Tellingly, the entire ammunition stockpile of the German Bundeswehr (armed forces) would sustain just two days of combat against an adversary like Russia.
While Russia is not as strong as it once was, Europe has good reasons to be concerned. Putin’s determination to reverse the outcome of the Cold War has escalated into a near-religious obsession with restoring Russian imperial power. His war of aggression in Georgia in 2008, annexation of Crimea in 2014, and full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 illustrate his relentless ambition. Under Putin, Russia’s ships and spy planes regularly survey the borders of countries like Sweden, Finland, the Baltic states, and even the U.K.
Putin’s aggression has forced Europe to abandon its post-historical mindset and get serious about rearmament. Military spending by the European Union’s member states reached a record of $260 billion in 2022, a 6 percent increase from the previous year, with McKinsey projecting that Europe’s annual defense expenditures could increase to 500 billion euro by 2028.
The organizational and material degradation Russia’s military has suffered during two years of intense fighting in Ukraine, along with the risk that a full-scale mobilization for war with NATO could destabilize his regime, will likely deter Putin from embarking on additional military campaigns in the foreseeable future. If Russia’s gains in Ukraine are limited to its current defensive lines without a decisive victory – an outcome contingent on Western support for Ukraine – Putin’s appetite for further adventures in the Baltics would be severely diminished. Nevertheless, this would not prevent him from trying to destabilize Moldova, Georgia, the South Caucasus, the Western Balkans, and even France and the U.K., nor would it limit the operations of his private military forces in Africa.
But Putin’s nuclear threats reflect Russia’s inability to compete with NATO in a conventional arms race of the kind that crippled the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Even though European countries still spend less on defense than the NATO target of 2 percent of GDP, Russia cannot match the combined defense budget of NATO’s member states, even without the US.
But while boosting military spending could prevent Russia from attacking European countries, larger defense budgets alone will not solve the continent’s strategic problems. To defend itself, Europe must also improve the integration and interoperability of its various military cultures and weapon systems. Given that this will be a prolonged process, von der Leyen’s proposal to establish an EU Defense Commissioner is a step in the right direction.
Europe also needs to reduce its reliance on the US nuclear umbrella. Establishing an independent European nuclear deterrent, which only France and the UK can provide, is crucial to countering Putin’s aggression. Without such a deterrent, as The Economist recently put it, the same rationale that led France to develop its Force de Frappe (military and nuclear strike force) – the notion that America would not sacrifice New York for Paris – could now extend to the rest of Europe: Would France be willing to risk Toulouse for Tallinn?
That said, even if Europe were to improve its deterrence capabilities, it would be unwise to assume that leaders necessarily make rational decisions. In her 1984 book The March of Folly, historian Barbara Tuchman observes that political leaders frequently act against their own interests. America’s disastrous wars in the Middle East, the Soviet Union’s ill-fated campaign in Afghanistan, and the ongoing war of blind hatred between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, with its potential to escalate into a larger regional conflict, are prime examples of such missteps. As Tuchman notes, the march of folly is never-ending. That is precisely why Europe must prepare itself for an era of heightened vigilance.
You would think that with Nazis and Hamas shutting down the Ivy League schools in the USA, Mr. Ben-Ami would be a little more concerned about the existence of Israel. Surely he has heard about the Holocaust. The mainstreaming of anti-Semitism again should concern him.
But Ben-Ami has some insights worthy of sharing, even though he’s a dumbass, who doesn’t get President Trump, writing, “Given his blithe disregard for Europe’s security, it is clear why European countries, which have relied on the United States for their security since the end of World War II, should be concerned.”
Then a few paragraphs later, Ben-Ami bemoaned, “European countries saved $8.6 trillion [$8,600,000,000,000] over the past few decades, compared to average defense spending from 1960 to 1992, by downsizing their militaries. Mainly deployed in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, European military forces have been described as bonsai armies — miniature versions of real armies, with limited combat experience.”
That was what Trump complained about. He tried to wake NATO allies to stop mooching off the USA and bring their militaries up to snuff.
Not only did these mooches shortchange their military by $8,600,000,000,000 over the last 32 years but they spent it the worst way possible: on welfare.
Plus, they didn’t save the money. Their national debt skyrocketed. Britain’s national debt is three times as large as its annual gross domestic production. The Netherlands is even higher.
Even at that, Russia should be no big deal. It has an economy that measured by GDP per capita is smaller than Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and several other Caribbean tourist traps. The GDP per capita of the Bahamas is doubles Russia’s. Does anyone fear the Bahamas?
But Europe has found a way to have to make Russia a serious threat. First, Europe opened its gates and let millions of military-age Muslims into their welfare-state countries to feast on their welfare programs. These “avatars of diversity” raped German women on New Year’s Eve 2015. Instead of outrage, Germans accepted it — and denounced Trump for even mentioning it.
DW later complained, “During his US presidential election campaign, Donald Trump portrayed the attacks as a cautionary tale from a misguided refugee policy. Trump used them unscrupulously in his anti-immigration polemics.
“In Germany itself, the long-running debate about migration policy and how to live together in a pluralistic society flared up. Citizens who until then had no concerns felt a newfound need for security. Sales of alarm pistols, pepper spray, and tear gas soared to record levels.”
Alarm pistols? Those are blank guns. Firing one does nothing but make you a fair target for retaliation.
Trump warned them that the USA will not always be there for them.
Biden stuffed the ballot boxes with fraudulent mail-in ballots and took the presidency, much to the relief of the Eurocrats pushing the pencils in Brussels. When Putin looked into Biden’s eyes, he saw an opportunity to annex Donbas in Ukraine by force.
NATO leaders and Congress rallied ’round the blue and yellow flag. The farce was with them. They gave Zelenskyy everything he wanted, including an extra and unnecessary Y at the end of his name. The proxy war — encouraging Ukraine to fight Russia for us — strengthened Putin because his generals now have combat experience while NATO’s generals are still doormen with shiny medals.
CNBC reported last year, “Russia’s military has been widely discredited and disparaged by the Western media since the start of its invasion of Ukraine, seen to have bungled the early phase of the war after suffering a series of setbacks and retreats.
“But defense analysts at a top London-based military think tank have investigated Russia’s tactical adaptations during the war and have noted that a more structured, coordinated, and reactive armed force has emerged — and one that’s particularly strong on the defensive.
“As such, Russia’s military now represents a much more formidable opponent for Ukraine as it prepares to launch a much-anticipated counteroffensive to reclaim occupied territory.”
NATO has awoken a sleeping midget by adding Ukraine as a member in everything but name. This is an alligator mouth, bumblebee ass move because NATO cannot fight a foreign war when it is under attack by the Muslim World from within. The squawking by NATO leaders likely is to get their kids’ cuts of the action.
Ben-Ami ended his piece, “Europe also needs to reduce its reliance on the US nuclear umbrella. Establishing an independent European nuclear deterrent, which only France and the UK can provide, is crucial to countering Putin’s aggression. Without such a deterrent, as The Economist recently put it, the same rationale that led France to develop its Force de Frappe (military and nuclear strike force) — the notion that America would not sacrifice New York for Paris — could now extend to the rest of Europe: Would France be willing to risk Toulouse for Tallinn?
“That said, even if Europe were to improve its deterrence capabilities, it would be unwise to assume that leaders necessarily make rational decisions. In her 1984 book The March of Folly, historian Barbara Tuchman observes that political leaders frequently act against their own interests. America’s disastrous wars in the Middle East, the Soviet Union’s ill-fated campaign in Afghanistan, and the ongoing war of blind hatred between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, with its potential to escalate into a larger regional conflict, are prime examples of such missteps. As Tuchman notes, the march of folly is never-ending. That is precisely why Europe must prepare itself for an era of heightened vigilance.”
I agree. Let Europe defend Europe.
I would gladly sell Europe the missiles they need and even nukes if it kept us from adding wars. It won’t, of course, because war is profitable for politicians. Ben-Ami said “political leaders frequently act against their own interests.”
That made me chuckle. They always vote for their own interests. Their interests here just happen not to be ours. They want their Hunters and Meghans to be rich, rich, rich. And they are, are, are.
Sparz knows this and voted against sending more money to Zelensky. I have a sneaky suspicion that she cares more about Ukrainians than he does.
