Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Vladimir Putin’

EXCLUSIVE: Hungarian Foreign Minister Says Ukraine-Russia War Would Not Have Happened Under Trump


By HENRY RODGERS, SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT | October 26, 2022

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/10/26/hungary-foreign-minister-peter-szijjarto-ukraine-russia-war-joe-biden-donald-trump/

Henry Rodgers and Foreign Minister of Hungary Péter Szijjártó:Daily Caller Obtained
Henry Rodgers and Foreign Minister of Hungary Péter Szijjártó:Daily Caller Obtained

WASHINGTON, DC – The foreign minister of Hungary, Péter Szijjártó, in part, blamed the current war between Ukraine and Russia on President Joe Biden in an exclusive interview Wednesday with the Daily Caller. He argued that if the 2020 election had played out differently, there would be no war.

Szijjártó sat down for an interview with the Caller after speaking at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) International Ministerial Conference and discussed a variety of different issues affecting the U.S. and Europe, including the war in Ukraine. Throughout the interview, Szijjártó made it clear he believes that if former President Donald Trump and former Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel were still in power, the war would not have started.

“The European economy is suffering. Europe is suffering. That is why the only solution for Europe is peace. But definitely, peace will not come with this behavior. What the U.S. administration has been showing. Why? Because in order to create peace, you would need to talk. You would need to communicate,” Szijjártó said during the interview. “And you know, I am usually under very heavy pressure and criticism of why I still talk to the Russians. But, you know, I mean, you cannot afford not to talk to them when you are almost hundred percent dependent on their energy sources and Russia is a reality in Europe, and Russia will remain a reality in Europe regardless of the outcome of this war.”

He continued:

“So, you know, what we are definitely sure about is that if your presidential election had played out differently in 2020, this war would not have broken out. As much as I can be sure about things that didn’t happen, I am pretty sure that this would have been the case because we are currently, globally speaking, we are currently lacking leaders. President Trump was a real leader. Chancellor Merkel was a real leader. So what I know is that if Chancellor Merkel. And if President Trump had stayed in power, this war, I’m pretty sure, would not have been broken out. So that’s why what we hope is that there will be some American-Russian talks in this regard because don’t be misled. Don’t be misled. This is necessary to create peace. Russian-American talks.

(Henry Rodgers and Foreign Minister of Hungary Péter Szijjártó: Daily Caller Obtained)

On Monday, a group of 30 Democrats in Congress requested that the Biden administration seek negotiations with Putin. Several have since walked back their support. (RELATED: ‘Easier Dealing With The Taliban’: Hungarian Officials Blast US Over Lack Of Help In Afghanistan Evacuation)

Szijjártó echoed their concerns, however, mentioning the upcoming November G-20 summit in Indonesia, which Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin are scheduled to attend, as an opportunity for the two leaders to talk. The Hungarian minister’s suggestion comes despite claims that U.S. officials are making sure Biden does talk with Putin, per Politico. Biden himself previously told CNN’s Jake Tapper said he will not meet the Russian president except maybe to discuss American Britney Griner, who is serving a 9-year sentence in Russian prison. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Here’s Why Hungary Is Incentivizing Children, Marriage)

“I do hope that those discussions, which are necessary to finish the war, will take place soon. And I don’t want to degrade anyone, but I am pretty certain that these negotiations must take place between the American and the Russian administration,” Szijjártó said. “And, you know, I hope that both of them will behave responsibly because I understand that there will be a G20 meeting. I understand that there is a chance that both of the presidents might be there. And to be honest, I think it would be very, very complicated to explain to the world from both perspectives, why they have not met, if they. If they are on the same place. So, you know, we in Hungary cannot do anything more than just wish, hope, and pray.”

“I want to underline that I really do believe and think that if he had stayed in power, this wouldn’t have broken out,” he added.

As of Oct. 3, the U.S. has spent 52 billion euros in military, financial and humanitarian aid in Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Hungary has urged an immediate ceasefire and end to the conflict. (RELATED: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban To Speak At CPAC In Texas)

‘Total Lunacy’: Tucker Carlson Calls Out Political Leaders’ Dishonesty About Potential Third World War


Reported by NICOLE SILVERIO, MEDIA REPORTER | July 13, 2022

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/13/tucker-carlson-political-leaders-dishonesty-third-world-war/

Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson
[Screenshot/Rumble/Fox News]

Fox News host and Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson called out political leaders’ alleged dishonesty Wednesday about a potential third world war. Carlson criticized Republicans for not recognizing “untrue” warnings of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s potential takeover of Europe, pointing to Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham vowing to pass a resolution to name Russia a “sponsor of terrorism” during a trip to Kyiv, Ukraine, along with Democratic Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal.

“Defeat Putin. Will that improve your life? Is it improving the lives of the Ukrainians right now? No, it’s not,” Carlson said. “And yet, every person who has been on the wrong side of every foreign policy decision going back forty years is on the same page.”

The Daily Caller co-founder cited former White House national security adviser John Bolton admitting to CNN Tuesday he had formed coups in foreign countries and therefore said the Jan. 6 Capitol riot did not classify as one.

Carlson mocked CNBC host Jim Cramer calling on President Joe Biden to arm Ukrainians in order for them to successfully defeat Russia. He added that setting up a no-fly zone is not the best foreign policy option. (RELATED: ‘Don’t Dodge The Question’: Tucker Gets In Near Shouting Match With GOP Rep Over Ukraine, Immigration)

“Wait, what? I tuned in to find out whether I should buy Cisco on the dip, and you’re a foreign policy expert now? The American economy is in serious trouble, it’s heading south faster than anyone anticipated,” the host said. “But instead, you turn on CNBC and the geniuses are talking about World War III. And they’re not the only ones.”

Carlson pointed to a New York City public service announcement instructing citizens on what to do in the event of a nuclear attack. The video told viewers to go inside, shut doors and windows and immediately clean themselves in the aftermath of the bombing.

“If you were drinking beer and this came on TV, you would think maybe she was giving you advice on what to do if your basement floods or if there’s a heat wave,” he said. “Then you hear the part where she says, ‘radioactive dust’ and you snap, ‘radioactive dust?’ You’re suggesting someone might lob a nuclear weapon into our largest city? What? What the hell are you talking about? How did we get so close to nuclear war that the city of New York is telling me to wash the radioactive dust off my pants? This is total lunacy. This is crazy.”

The host said the fear of nuclear war is spreading because the Republican Party has “collaborated” with the Biden administration to defeat Putin and preparing for World War III. 

NATO Formally Invites Sweden, Finland To Join After Big Breakthrough with Turkey


Reported by SHELBY TALCOTT, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT | June 29, 2022

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/06/29/nato-invites-sweden-finland-join-turkey-ukraine-russia-summit/

FILE PHOTO: Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, Finland's President Sauli Niinisto, Sweden's Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Sweden's Foreign Minister Ann Linde and Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto react during a NATO summit in Madrid, Spain, June 28, 2022. REUTERS/Violeta Santos Moura/File Photo
REUTERS/Violeta Santos Moura/File Photo

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) formally invited Sweden and Finland to join the alliance on Wednesday after Turkey dropped its opposition to the move. World leaders, including President Joe Biden, gathered in Madrid earlier in the week for the NATO Summit. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Finland President Sauli Niinistö and Sweden Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson on Tuesday to hash out details of the two countries’ push to join NATO – a move that came after Russia invaded Ukraine and which Turkey originally said it would not support.

“In that meeting, the leaders agreed a trilateral memorandum to address Turkey’s legitimate security concerns, paving the way for Finland and Sweden’s NATO membership,” a NATO statement posted late Tuesday read.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg oversaw the meeting and later praised the result. (RELATED: US Issues Warning To Russia As Finland, Sweden On Cusp Of Joining NATO)

“I strongly welcome the signing of this trilateral memorandum, and I strongly welcome the constructive approach all three countries have shown during the negotiations. Finnish and Swedish membership of NATO is good for Finland and Sweden, it is good for NATO, and it is good for European security,” Stoltenberg said.

The official invitation paves the way for the alliance to bolster up to 32 member nations.

The trilateral agreement between Turkey, Finland and Sweden includes an extradition request for 33 terror suspects in the two Nordic countries, according to CNN. The agreement also addresses concerns from Turkey “around arms exports, and the fight against terrorism,” according to Stoltenberg.

“We [Turkey] will ask them to fulfill the requirements of our applications after this memorandum of understanding,” Turkish Justice Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag told reporters shortly after the news, according to CNN. “We have already applied for extradition. The files of six PKK and six FETO terrorists in Finland and 10 FETO and 11 PKK terrorists in Sweden.”

“Our ministry will write about their return and remind them again … Once again, we ask them to fulfill their promises,” Bozdag added.

Support in Finland and Sweden for joining NATO skyrocketed after Russia’s invasion in February, according to Business Insider. Should the deal officially go through, Russia’s border with NATO countries would more than double. Turkey’s reversal is a major loss to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has vehemently opposed increasing NATO and vowed to retaliate in May after Finland announced its intention to seek membership.

“Russia will be forced to take retaliatory steps, both of a military-technical and other nature, in order to stop threats to its national security arising,” Russia’s foreign ministry said at the time.

Defense Expert Spots Massive Issue with Russia Trucks, Indicates Entire War’s About to Change


Reported By Elizabeth Stauffer | March 21, 2022

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/defense-expert-spots-massive-issue-russia-trucks-indicates-entire-wars-change/

Over the course of his long career with the Department of Defense, Trent Telenko spent 10 years as an Army vehicle auditor.

Based in Sealy, Texas, he received and inspected the steady stream of military vehicles damaged in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This experience has given Telenko an eye for details that others could easily miss as well as a unique perspective on Russia’s progress in Ukraine.

In early March, Telenko saw on social media a photograph of a Russian Pantsir-S1 missile system located near the Ukrainian city of Kherson. His eyes went immediately to the system’s tires. Rather than using high-quality, more expensive tires that could support the tremendous weight of the Pantsir-S1, the Russian army had opted for cheaper, low-quality, Chinese-made tires. He also noticed they were in terrible shape because they had not been properly maintained.

In a widely read Twitter thread, Telenko identified the problems caused by the Russian army’s failure to properly maintain not only this specific Pantsir, but neglect of the entire fleet.

Telenko’s analysis captured the attention of media outlets from The Economist to ABC News.

In the clip below, Telenko explained to ABC anchors how the Russian military’s inattention to critical safety measures is bogging its forces down and undermining its progress in the war. He noted that he “could tell at a glance” what was wrong with the tires on Russian trucks: Neglected maintenance that would destroy the usefulness of the army’s vehicles.

Check out the whole interview. It’s worth watching.

Telenko published a new thread on Saturday in which he discussed “Operational Attrition,” a concept he defines as the “loss of vehicles without a shot being fired.”

“That is, just by operating vehicles, you lose some of them because they break,” he wrote. “This gets a lot worse in combat. Each mile traveled by a military truck in war is between 10 and 20 miles wear. This is simple. Truck drivers abuse trucks because they don’t want to die.”

Telenko participated in three U.S. Army “Reset” programs from 2003 to 2008. The goal was to repair damaged FMTV trucks (family of medium tactical vehicles). And he was tasked with performing “induction inspections of IED blast damaged trucks.”

Describing their condition, he wrote, “None of those vehicles ran, but mainly because they had been picked over for parts. There were not that many miles on them, but goodness was there oil leaks, sludge, leaky radiators, carbon build ups & the suspensions were beat to h–l. Cab glass was noticeable by its absence.”

“This was in an Army that has professional NCO’s that lived, breathed and ate preventive maintenance as a religious catechism. And the US Army enforced rest periods for its truck drivers because it cared enough about having men & equipment future operations,” he explained.

The Russian Army doesn’t do any of these things, he wrote. And for the past 10 years, they were barely maintained. Now, these same trucks are being overloaded with artillery and ammunition and sent into the war zone.

Here’s what can and has gone wrong for the Russians.

Telenko concludes that the lack of professional maintenance and wear, unprofessional use by undertrained troops and soldier exhaustion has already and will continue to cause high levels of “operational attrition” in their truck fleets. The “details” that are being ignored will lead to massive issues.

He predicts in six to eight weeks, the entire Russian Army military truck fleet will be “deadlined.”

“Between the end of April and Mid-May 2022, the Ukrainian Army will be able to counter-attack EVERYWHERE. Because there will be NOWHERE more than 20 miles/30 km inside Ukraine where Russian troops won’t be out of food and low on ammunition.”

Do you think Ukraine can turn back the Russian invasion?Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Let’s hope Telenko is right and pray that the Ukrainians can continue to hang on.

In February, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could take Kyiv in 72 hours. Nearly four weeks after the Russian invasion began Feb. 24, the Russian military has managed to reduce some cities to rubble and resorted to indiscriminate bombing and brutal tactics, yet the Ukrainian people are still standing.

The formidable Russian Army which greatly outnumbers the Ukrainian military in men, artillery and equipment isn’t quite as mighty as the world had thought.

Although the government of Russian President Vladimir Vladimir Putin had unlimited time to prepare for this invasion, Putin apparently grossly underestimated his opponent. His military commanders might have failed to plan the logistics of a protracted war, without which, even the strongest army will falter.

Elizabeth Stauffer, Contributor,

Elizabeth is a contract writer at The Western Journal. Her articles have appeared on many conservative websites including RedState, Newsmax, The Federalist, Bongino.com, HotAir, MSN and RealClearPolitics. Please follow Elizabeth on Twitter.

@StaufferVaughn

Washington Is Ramping Up Its Campaign to Draw NATO Into War With Russia


REPORTED BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | MARCH 16, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/16/washington-is-ramping-up-its-campaign-to-draw-nato-into-war-with-russia/

S300 missile system

By now it should be obvious that a concerted and bipartisan effort is underway in Washington to escalate U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war. This effort has been ongoing since the war began three weeks ago, but now it’s entering a new and dangerous phase. In a letter sent Tuesday to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a half-dozen top Republican lawmakers called for the Biden administration to provide Ukraine with “Soviet- or Russian-made strategic and tactical air defense systems and associated radars to Ukraine.”

That means long-range surface-to-air missiles, like the Soviet-made S-300 system, which is designed to shoot down enemy aircraft and intercept ballistic missiles. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged the United States to help Ukraine acquire S-300 air defense systems from countries that have them, like North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members Bulgaria, Greece, and Slovakia, and he might do so again on Wednesday when he addresses Congress.

In action, S-300 air defense systems look something like this:

The provision of such heavy weaponry to Ukraine, whether by the United States or our NATO allies, would represent an unprecedented level of direct military support for Ukraine that would undoubtedly — and rightly — be interpreted by Moscow as a sharp escalation by the West. 

Top Republican lawmakers, though, are undeterred by such concerns. The letter, signed by GOP Sens. James Inhofe, Marco Rubio, James Risch, and Reps. Mike Rogers, Michael Turner, and Michael McCaul, also calls for an array of other weapons to be sent immediately to Ukraine, including more Javelin antitank and Stinger antiaircraft missiles, which the United States has been providing to Ukraine in large quantities, as well as myriad small arms, ammunition, and other supplies.  It also calls for the delivery to Ukraine of Polish MiG-29 fighter jets “in the near term,” and for the United States to “re-engage Warsaw” on ways to backfill those aircraft. The Republican signatories then declare: “We encourage the department to re-evaluate the flawed conclusion that the transfer of these fighter jets to Ukraine would be ‘escalatory’ in comparison to the weapons systems that have already been delivered to Ukraine by the U.S. and our allies and partners.”

On the contrary, it would indeed be escalatory simply because the weapons that have already been delivered to Ukraine are nothing compared to, say, dozens of advanced fighter jets. Poland certainly considers such a course of action “escalatory.”

After all, the entire fighter jet transfer scheme was abandoned last week when Poland, responding to some loose talk from Blinken about giving a “green light” to the transfer, offered to deploy its MiG-29s to Ramstein Air Base in Germany and place them at the disposal of the United States. Poland was essentially asking the United States to bear the risks of sending fighter jets into Ukraine, which Moscow would almost certainly consider an act of war. The Biden administration, recognizing these risks, declined Poland’s offer.

None of this seems to daunt these Republican lawmakers, though. They seem to think we should press ahead and arm the Ukrainians with everything short of NATO soldiers and nuclear weapons. The idea of sending long-range surface-to-air missiles to Ukraine is essentially identical to the MiG-29 transfer idea: funnel advanced weapons systems to Ukraine but somehow maintain the fiction that the United States and NATO are non-belligerents. At some point, we will cross the line of belligerence, and whether and when we cross that line isn’t something we alone get to decide.

It’s not enough, as these GOP lawmakers are doing, to wave away the risks that such policies carry. Moscow clearly views this war as existential, and it will not simply allow NATO to funnel increasingly more powerful weapons into Ukraine. As I argued last week, this isn’t Afghanistan or Syria. Controlling Ukraine is central to Moscow’s conception of its national security, and it won’t simply walk away from this war without widening it first.

Lawmakers in Washington aren’t the only ones who refuse to see this. Open the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal these days and you’ll see the same kind of hand-waving over the risks of escalation. On Tuesday, the Journal published an op-ed by Douglas Feith and John Hannah (along with a supporting editorial) that argued for a “humanitarian airlift” for Ukraine without acknowledging the risks involved.

What, exactly, would that look like? An international airlift, openly organized and funded by the United States, would “provide food, medicine and other nonmilitary supplies for days, weeks and maybe longer,” write Feith and Hannah, who both served as national-security officials in the George W. Bush administration. “Countries viewed as not hostile to Russia — perhaps Brazil, Egypt, India and the United Arab Emirates — could take the lead in flying planes into Ukraine.”

But since NATO and the United States aren’t willing to impose a no-fly zone (yet) it’s hard to imagine pilots from those non-NATO countries will be lining up to volunteer for the mission. What happens if they get shot down?

Feith and Hannah don’t say. Russian President Vladimir Putin, they argue, “would either consent and facilitate distribution of supplies or provoke more denunciations of Russia for its inhumanity.” Or he might shoot down a supply plane, launch a missile attack on the NATO airbase where the airlift is based, or do any number of things to widen the war in response.

Feith and Hannah, along with the Journal’s editorial board, make no serious attempt to grapple with the risks involved in such an operation, let alone the potential for rapid escalation once things go sideways. Like the aforementioned Republican lawmakers, they refuse to engage in even the most rudimentary risk analysis.

Why? One possible explanation is that perhaps the people making these arguments want the United States to get involved as a belligerent, and don’t really believe their hand-waving about the risks associated with their schemes. Feith and Hannah, for example, laughably assert that there is “little to no downside” to their proposal, which they also note “doesn’t preclude efforts to arm the Ukrainians better, or eventually to establish a no-fly zone, but because the airlift is far less risky it should be more readily doable.”

Well, yes, a humanitarian airlift into an active warzone is certainly less risky than a no-fly zone, which is indistinguishable from going to war with Russia, but that doesn’t mean it’s risk-free, much less prudent. But maybe that’s the point: dial up the risk and see what happens.

As the war in Ukraine stretches into its third week, with heavy Russian bombardment of Ukrainian cities intensifying and civilian causalities mounting, we’re going to hear more and more arguments out of Washington that the United States and NATO need to do more, that we can’t stand aside and let Putin do as he pleases in Ukraine. The people making these arguments will deny that their proposals for aiding Ukraine, however unprecedented, could risk escalation with or retaliation from Moscow. They will not even engage that question in good faith.

Instead, they will insist, with the force of what they believe is moral authority, that we keep plunging down a slippery slope that eventually leads to war between NATO and Russia — and that we do so without even acknowledging what we’re doing.


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

‘Cowardly And Pathetic’: Newt Gingrich Rips Biden Administration, Says US Leadership Is Weak Trying To Handle Putin


Reported by NICOLE SILVERIO | CONTRIBUTOR | March 15, 2022

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/03/15/cowardly-pathetic-newt-gingrich-rips-biden-administration-leadership-weak-putin/

Newt Gingrich on "The Faulkner Focus"
[Screenshot/Rumble/Fox News]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich ripped the leadership of President Joe Biden’s administration in handling Russian President Vladimir Putin on a Tuesday interview for “The Faulkner Focus.”

“We should know after Afghanistan, this is the most timid, cowardly and pathetic administration in modern American history,” Gingrich said. “There aren’t any words to express it. If you watch Kamala Harris in Europe, it was an embarrassment to have that person represent the United States because she’s so totally, utterly incompetent. And I think the Europeans have taken our measure. I don’t think anybody in Europe looks to the United States right now to provide any leadership of any kind.”

WATCH:

Gingrich said Biden has not provided “any leadership of any kind,” adding that he thought the U.S. could defeat Putin if the country could “unleash” the “competent people” in handling the conflict.

“But instead, we’re intimidated by him [Putin], we’re allowing him to get away with war crimes. These are all war crimes … It’s beyond words if you’re a serious person to try and describe what a complete, utter embarrassing failure Biden is,” he continued.

“This is not who we are,” host Harris Faulkner replied. “We’re not weak, we’re not.”

Gingrich agreed the country is not weak, but said that the president is now attempting to buy oil from Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia rather than increasing domestic oil production. (RELATED: Newt Gingrich Rips ‘Lack Of Seriousness’ In Biden Admin By Sending Kamala Harris On Diplomatic Trip) 

“You can’t be nuttier than this administration,” Gingrich continued. “It combines cowardice and crazy ideas into a really dangerous, historically threatening model. People should really worry about the next three years.”

The president imposed sanctions on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine and announced a ban on all imports of Russian oil and gas March 8. The administration has received criticism from some lawmakers for not doing enough to aid Ukraine, particularly after the State Department declined to send Polish MiG jets to Ukrainians from an airbase in Ramstein, Germany.

Vice President Kamala Harris received a wave of backlash for bursting into laugher during a joint press conference Thursday alongside Polish President Andrzej Duda.

Reporter Suggests Biden Is Pushing Ukrainians To ‘Commit Suicide’


Reported by ANDERS HAGSTROM | WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT | March 14, 2022

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/03/14/joe-biden-jen-psaki-ukraine-commit-suicide-putin/

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. (Screenshot/YouTube/Fox Business)
[Screenshot/YouTube/Fox Business]

A reporter suggested that the U.S. was pushing Ukrainians to “commit suicide” in a hopeless war against Russia during a White House press briefing Monday.

The reporter asked White House press secretary Jen Psaki about how far the U.S. and NATO were willing to go to support Ukraine’s fight against the Russian invasion. President Joe Biden, Psaki and other administration officials have repeatedly stated that the U.S. will not deploy troops to defend Ukraine, nor will it enforce a no-fly zone over the country. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: ‘Speak Loudly And Carry A Small Stick’: Republicans Blast Biden’s Response To Putin’s Escalation In Ukraine)

“I’m trying to understand your end game in Ukraine,” the reporter began. “You’re not sending troops there; there will be no no-fly zone over Ukraine. Would it be a fair assessment to say that you are pushing these guys to commit suicide, knowing that Russia is a superpower and eventually will capture the main cities?”

“The end game is really a question for President Putin,” Psaki responded. “We have completely crushed his economy. We have provided military assistance and humanitarian assistance to the Ukrainians, enabling them to fight back for far longer than the Russian leadership anticipated, and again, he has to determine what the path forward looks like for him.”

WATCH:

The U.S. and other NATO countries have levied heavy economic sanctions against Russia for its aggression in Ukraine, but have not delivered direct support against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion. Biden has suggested that any conflict between U.S. and Russian forces would result in a third “World War.”

A Monday poll found that the majority of Americans lack confidence that Biden can prevent war from spreading out of Ukraine to other countries. Republicans and independents were united in their concern about Biden’s policies, while Democrats largely stated they remain confident in the President.

Biden has warned Putin that any invasion of a NATO country would be met with the full force of the U.S. military. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has edged farther west since it began, with an airstrike falling on Poland’s “doorstep” Sunday.

Russia Offers Ukraine List of Demands, Says It Will Stop Military Operations ‘in a Moment’ if Met


Reported By Richard Moorhead | March 7, 2022

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/russia-offers-ukraine-list-demands-says-will-stop-military-operations-moment-met/

Russia has released a list of four demands it’s calling preconditions for ending its invasion of Ukraine. A Kremlin spokesman identified the terms on Monday, according to Reuters.

First, Dmitry Peskov said, Ukraine must halt all military action.

Russian propaganda has consistently invoked the “demilitarization” of Ukraine as an objective of the invasion, demanding that one of the largest countries in Europe remain defenseless.

Second, Russia wants Ukraine to recognize Crimea as Russian territory.

Trending: Rep Waltz: Ukrainians Have Been Begging for US Stinger Missiles Since December, But Biden Held Off Until It Was Too Late

Russia forcibly annexed Crimea in 2014, seizing the region of southern Ukraine in response to growing pro-NATO and European Union sentiment in the former Soviet republic.

Third, Ukraine must recognize two regions of its territory as independent countries, following Russia’s recognition of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic last month.

Pro-Russian secessionist groups control population centers within the two regions of Eastern Ukraine, where conflict has occurred since 2014. Such a move could lead to Russian annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk.

After Russian troops poured into Crimea in 2014, the region was briefly declared an “independent country” before its inhabitants supposedly voted to join Russia while facing the gun barrel of a Russian military occupation.

“We have also spoken about how they should recognize that Crimea is Russian territory and that they need to recognize that Donetsk and Lugansk are independent states,” Peskov told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Finally, Russia wants Ukraine to amend its constitution to bar the country from pursuing NATO membership.

“They should make amendments to the constitution according to which Ukraine would reject any aims to enter any bloc,” Peskov said, according to Reuters.

“And that’s it. It will stop in a moment,” he said.

Related: Japan Moving to Rebuild Its Military in ‘Big Awakening’

Peskov said Ukraine was aware of the conditions. The list of demands was outlined as Russian and Ukrainian diplomats begin a new round of talks at the border of Belarus and Poland. Some Ukrainian leaders, such as former President Petro Poroshenko, have expressed doubt that negotiations will lead anywhere.

The terms, which undermine the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, are extremely unlikely to lead to a diplomatic agreement to end the conflict.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Richard Moorhead

Richard Moorhead is a conservative journalist, a graduate of Arizona State University, service member, and guitar player.

Million-Dollar Bounty Placed on Vladimir Putin


Reported By Abby Liebing | March 3, 2022

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/million-dollar-bounty-placed-vladimir-putin/

A bounty has been put out for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Alex Konanykhin, a Russian businessman, has offered a $1 million bounty to Russian officers to arrest Putin as a war criminal, Business Insider reported.

“I promise to pay $1,000,000 to the officer(s) who, complying with their constitutional duty, arrest(s) Putin as a war criminal under Russian and international laws. Putin is not the Russian president as he came to power as the result of a special operation of blowing up apartment buildings in Russia, then violated the Constitution by eliminating free elections and murdering his opponents,” Konanykhin wrote in a Facebook post.

The explosion to which Konanykhin referred is part of a theory that the Russian Federal Security Service, of which Putin was head from 1998 to 1999, blew up apartments in 1999, then blamed it on Chechens. That explosion, was part of what sparked the Second Chechen War, an effort that made Putin very popular in Russia. In 1999, Putin became the Russian prime minister, before being named acting president on Dec. 31 of that year. He was elected to the presidency in March 2000, the Independent reported. With obvious animosity, Konanykhin also noted that he felt it was his duty to oppose Putin’s war and keep assisting Ukraine against the Russian president.

“As an ethnic Russian and a Russia citizen, I see it as my moral duty to facilitate the denazification of Russia. I will continue my assistance to Ukraine in its heroic efforts to withstand the onslaught of Putin’s Orda,” he added in his post.

Konanykhin’s original Facebook post included a photo of Putin, with the caption, “Wanted: Dead or alive. Vladimir Putin for mass murder,” the Independent reported.

Facebook then banned his post.

But Konanykhin then re-posted with just the text informing about his bounty offer.

“Facebook banned my post; do you think it was a correct decision? I omit the picture as it was a ‘dead or alive’ poster, but this is the text,” he wrote.

Konanykhin is one of the many Russian businessmen who rose to wealth and prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union, according to Newsweek. Konanykhin said he has not visited Russia since 1992, Business Insider reported.

The Russian businessman has a complicated history with the Russian government. In 1996 he was in the U.S. but was arrested after Russian authorities claimed he has embezzled $8 million from the Russian Exchange Bank, the Independent reported. However, the U.S. gave him political asylum after several FBI agents testified that the Russian mafia had put a contract on Konanykhin. Several years later, his asylum was revoked, but he was not deported. A U.S. district judge cancelled his deportation, saying that returning Konanykhin to Moscow “stinks.”

After placing a bounty on Putin, Konanykhin was asked if he feared that Putin would come after him for putting a bounty on his head.

“Putin is known to murder his opponents,” he said, Business Insider reported. “He has millions of them now.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Abby Liebing, Associate

Abby Liebing is a Hillsdale College graduate with a degree in history. She has written for various outlets and enjoys covering foreign policy issues and culture.

Switzerland Drops Neutrality in Rare Move to Freeze Russian Assets


Reported by DYLAN HOUSMAN | HEALTHCARE REPORTER | February 28, 2022

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/02/28/switzerland-ukraine-russia-freeze-assets-putin-lavrov/

Switzerland Drops Neutrality In Rare Move To Freeze Russian Assets
(Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

Switzerland announced Monday it will be freezing Russian assets due to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, breaking a longstanding tradition of neutrality in foreign conflicts.

Swiss President Ignazio Cassis said Putin’s assets, along with those of Russia’s prime minister, foreign minister and 367 more individuals sanctioned by the European Union, would be frozen immediately, according to The New York Times. Cassis met with the Swiss Federal Council and determined that action was necessary due to the “unprecedented” aggression displayed by Russia in invading a sovereign European state.

Switzerland further joined the rest of the E.U. in shutting down its airspace to Russian aircraft, but said it will decide whether to join further European sanctions on a case-by-case basis.

The flight ban will prevent Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov from making a planned speech Tuesday to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. As of 2020, Russian companies and citizens owned more than $11 billion in assets in Swiss banks, according to the NYT. 

Switzerland has historically maintained a neutral stance in global conflicts, in part due to its role as a global financial hub. Cassis said he was concerned that following along with all European sanctions could threaten the country’s reputation, but that some action was necessary.

Op-ed: Flynn Exposes Truth About Putin’s Real Plan – Says It’s Time to Pray


Commentary By Michael Flynn | February 24, 2022

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/breaking-flynn-exposes-truth-putins-real-plan-says-time-pray/

With the price of oil pushing above $100 per barrel, the U.S. stock market opening with heavy losses, more global economic challenges looming, the real potential for significant loss of life, and the international community in complete disarray with feeble attempts to condemn what was totally avoidable, we face the onset of another very grave and historic period of tension between competing ideologies and worse, the onset of WWIII.

This “invasion” was totally avoidable.

As one friend told me, President Joe Biden and his failed foreign policy team set the table and sent the invitation and Russian President Vladimir Putin came and spoiled the dinner party.

Clearly, there are fault lines on both sides, but for now, we must pray that those affected, without the ability to decide their fate, are able to survive this extraordinary period of world history unfolding (for many, unraveling) on the world stage. Civilians and military forces will be killed, wounded and displaced; those are the real consequences of war.

Pray that this conventional war is limited in scope, purpose and intent.

Yes, there were gross violations of previous agreements due to incompetence, arrogance and ignorance that got us to this point. Beyond this, what happens next is anyone’s guess, but Putin (and Xi — Taiwan?) just laid down a new world order marker.

That said, it is doubtful that the U.S. administration will change its failed foreign policy, and instead, it will make weak attempts to triple down on leveraging this extremely serious situation in Europe to continue to distract from problems here at home.

Given the shutting down of the Keystone pipeline and America’s energy independence while also enabling Russia and Germany (read: Europe) to reopen the Nordstream pipeline, one has to wonder about the discussions in the Oval Office that came to these conclusions.

This is the Biden administration: describing America as a systemically racist nation; appointing Marxists and other radical ideologues to positions of power; allowing millions to surge across our southern border; attempting to federalize our election systems and processes; implementing racist critical race theory in our schools, military and government; and all along, raising the national debt until it is closing in on $30 trillion — spending us toward extinction, all for left-wing causes.

Let us not forget the Afghanistan disaster, the myriad lies about COVID, a certain Biden-owned laptop, a complete refusal to investigate allegations of election irregularities … all while China gets a pass.

It is extremely difficult to trust this administration when they lie with a straight face to the American people daily.

Anyone who questions these rotten foreign and domestic policies is demonized as a racist. We see the unleashing of the federal government on citizens who are simply exercising their constitutional rights and the establishment media covers all this incompetence with a fake smile due to their own deep corruption.

Our president rarely entertains questions or takes responsibility for his tone deafness and failures. The White House ignored — even laughed at — Putin’s legitimate security concerns and ethnic unrest in the Ukraine.

We have yet to hear from the president of the United States an explanation of U.S. national security interests in the region.

Instead, we continue to demonize Russia — reminiscent of the fake Russia-collusion hysteria we now know was perpetrated against the Trump administration by elements of the Clinton campaign  and Obama administration (among others).

President Putin calculated this strategic, historic and geographic play and made the decision to move.

And he did.

All that given, there will never be justification for this invasion or any other form of invasion. However, never forget that war results when diplomacy fails.

May God watch over and protect those in harm’s way and may God continue to bless and protect the United States of America.

Michael Flynn

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn served as national security advisor to President Donald Trump. Headshot photo credit: Jewel Samad / AFP via Getty Images.

Putin orders ‘peacekeeping’ troops to invade Ukraine, US to respond with sanctions


Reported by CARLOS GARCIA | February 21, 2022   

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/breaking-putin-orders-peacekeeping-troops-to-invade-ukraine-us-to-respond-with-sanctions-2656763762.html/

Vladimir Putin, the president of the Russian Federation, ordered an invasion of Ukraine on Monday after declaring the “independence” of two separatist regions of the country. Russia has accused Ukraine of oppressing Russian-speaking populations in Donetsk and Luhansk, two regions in southeastern Ukraine. Putin on Monday said Russia would send “peacekeeping” troops into the separatist areas, which critics say is a brazen excuse to invade a sovereign neighbor state. Russian-backed rebels in regions of Ukraine have called for separation since 2014, but in recent months Russia has placed more than 150,000 troops on its border with the country. In response, Ukrainian citizens have armed themselves in anticipation of the expected invasion.

A senior Biden administration official reportedly told journalists that Russia sending “peacekeeping” troops into Ukraine didn’t necessarily constitute an invasion.

“We will observe and assess what actions Russia actually takes and respond,” the official said.

Biden also spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a call after the announcement from Putin.

President Joe Biden has warned that the United States would hit Russia with punitive economic sanctions if they invaded. Those sanctions are expected to be announced on Tuesday.

The United States agreed to defend Ukraine in 1994 after the country agreed to dismantle more than 5,000 nuclear weapons left over from the fall of the Soviet Union.

Putin has reiterated many times his belief that the fall of the Soviet Union was the worst geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. In his speech Monday, he said it was “madness” that former Soviet republics were allowed to leave the USSR.

Here’s more about the decree from Putin:

Vladimir Putin declares two Ukraine regions independent www.youtube.com

In Opposing War with Russia, Tucker Carlson Champions the Hard-Won Truths of Putting American Interests First


REPORTED BY: SUMANTRA MAITRA | JANUARY 31, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/31/in-opposing-war-with-russia-tucker-carlson-champions-the-hard-won-truths-of-putting-american-interests-first/

Tucker Carlson monologue on Russia

Arecent Tucker Carlson monologue questioned the relentless narrative insisting Americans must compulsively side with Ukraine against Russia in their conflict.

“We are potentially on the verge of a land war in Europe aimed at extinguishing democracy and sovereignty, and the American right wing is on the side of ethno-nationalist authoritarianism. That’s where we’re at,” tweeted President Obama’s former speechwriter Ben Rhodes, who coined the phrase “DC blob,” in reply to Carlson without a hint of irony.

Another Democrat operative, who allegedly worked with the Ukrainian embassy to dig up dirt on President Trump, tweeted that Carlson should be prosecuted as a foreign agent. To top it all, President Obama’s former Russia hand quite literally called for war against a nuclear rival to ensure the sovereignty of Ukraine, a proposition unthinkable during Cold War bipartisanship, when the first instinct was to ensure great power equilibrium and avoid mutually assured destruction.

They are not the only ones. A recent New Yorker profile makes it clearer than any:

Vladimir Putin presents himself to his citizens and to the world as the standard-bearer of a modern counter-enlightenment. He has declared liberal democracy ‘obsolete,’ a political arrangement that has ‘outlived its purpose. One of his historical role models is said to be Alexander III, a reactionary tsar in the Romanov dynasty who instituted draconian restrictions on the press, sought to ‘Russify’ his multi-ethnic empire, and mobilized against internal and external threats. Four years ago, Putin expressed his deep admiration for the tsar while visiting the Crimean Peninsula, a substantial and distinctly unthreatening parcel of Ukraine that Russia invaded in 2014 and has occupied ever since.

A Rabid Response to the New Right’s Power

There is a palpable panic at Carlson arguably driving the GOP towards a more pre-war conservatism. It’s even being hysterically termed Putinism and Russia First” by some commentators. Michael McFaul, Obama’s Russia ambassador, was vocal on Twitter arguing that opposing Russia is a moral duty of anyone who opposes “imperialism,” alongside both prominent liberal theorists and second-tier neoconservative internationalist gadflies.

There has also been relentless fearmongering about Carlson, authoritarianism, and nationalism. Some have gone so far as to bizarrely tag Carlson a “comrade,” which is absurd because Putin’s Russia is far more Christian and conservative than the increasingly secular West.

“Why is it disloyal to side with Russia but loyal to side with Ukraine?” Carlson asked, provoking commentary noting Putin murders dissidents. Yet the world is full of rulers who murderously abuse power—for example, by sending drones that kill non-combatants and children.

It cannot be a matter of American patriotism to send U.S. troops to die for evils in other nations, or United States must attempt to police the entire globe. Experience has shown that is practically impossible and deeply damaging to U.S. national interests.

Thus in recent years, the ascendant New Right has led a bipartisan push for a more restrained foreign policy, one predicated on cutting down on foreign entanglements (termed as foreign policy realism in academic circles) especially from the Middle East, pushing Europe to spend a lot more for its own defense, and focusing more on domestic issues, as well as the rise of China. Carlson is perhaps the most prominent voice of that school in the right and has consistently opposed needless foreign confrontation, especially over Iran and Russia.

Matt Walsh and Sohrab Ahmari recently also opposed further confrontation with Russia over ensuring democracy and rights in Ukraine, as this conflict does not directly threaten the American landmass or way of life. Prominent next-gen Republican lawmakers and foreign policy leaders, such as Adam Laxalt, Bernie Moreno, J. D. Vance, Blake Masters, and Peter Meijer also often voice more realist rhetoric.

Is It America’s Job to Change Other Nations’ Regimes?

This realignment has also included questioning whether the ascending conservative foreign-policy realism in America, based on a narrow definition of national interest, is compatible with progressivism. Progressivism, as John Mearsheimer noted, is by definition universalist, radical, and revolutionary.

Mearsheimer wrote, “because liberalism prizes the concept of inalienable or natural rights, committed liberals are deeply concerned about the rights of virtually every individual on the planet. This universalist logic creates a powerful incentive for liberal states to get involved in the affairs of countries that seriously violate their citizens’ rights. To take this a step further, the best way to ensure that the rights of foreigners are not trampled is for them to live in a liberal democracy. This logic leads straight to an active policy of regime change, where the goal is to topple autocrats and put liberal democracies in their place.”

Consider the relentless number of tweets by a section of the commentariat about Western support for ensuring LGBT-favoring laws in Ukraine, and Mearsheimer sounds prescient. Whatever these people are, their constant revolutionary and internationalist rhetoric would make Leon Trotsky blush.

Our Job Is to Govern Ourselves First

Foreign policy realism, on the other hand, enacts a grand strategy based on amoral narrow national interest, one formulated by early American statesmen from George Washington to James Monroe to John Quincy Adams. If it ever comes back as an administrative principle, then it will become the domain solely of the right.

The aversion against great powers and spheres of influence is an egalitarian instinct claiming all states are equal, regardless of any other variable. This instinct is by definition unnatural and revolutionary. It defies geography, aggregate power, history, and most importantly, narrow nationalism.

Believing that “History” is progressive, and therefore acting on it to liberate everyone everywhere and promote rights and democracy, then becomes part of an inflated American national interest. The side that does not believe in nation-states or nationalism cannot by definition side with a narrow interpretation of national interest.

It’s Natural to Defend Yourself

Carlson is increasingly influential because he sides with something very natural: a human urge to be a nationalist, and therefore opposed to a relentless and crusading global revolution, whether promoting a borderless Marxism or an equally borderless liberalism.

The ascendant New Right believes in peace through strength, and a very narrow Jacksonian definition of nationalism, in which Europeans pay for their own security and Americans only come at the last moment if things go wrong. In this view, China is a far bigger threat to American prosperity and its land-mass than Russia or Iran will ever be, and defending porous American borders matters a lot more to Americans than Ukrainian borders.

The other side, a duopoly of Never Trump neoconservatives and liberal-internationalists, wants to continue to allegedly ensure human rights across the globe while neglecting the way of life at home. It may be a noble goal, but ultimately it’s one that the majority of Americans and an overwhelming number of conservatives are tired of after 30 years, thousands of lost lives, and trillions of dollars in deficits.

The instinct for promoting a global revolution to promote LGBT rights, liberalism, and feminism is as radical an instinct as it can get, and that argument is increasingly opposed by a majority of Americans who simply don’t care enough to spend blood and treasure in places they cannot spot on a map.

Self-Government Means No Country Is Too Big to Fail

When Rhodes and McFaul yell about defending human rights in Ukraine, and Carlson and others on the right remind everyone of American failures in pursuing such an unlimited global policy, it’s important to rethink the priors and understand the re-alignment in foreign policy is complete. Powerful realist voices on the left such as Matthew Duss, Stephen Wertheim, Tulsi Gabbard, and Rep. Ro Khanna notwithstanding, it is becoming increasingly clear that true restrained foreign policy realism is connected to a very narrow form of nationalism, and that is fundamentally a reactionary and therefore conservative concept.

Second, as I wrote recently, “selling” such foreign policy, even to a very instinctively nationalist electorate like America, means talking in a language that most people will get. Carlson (and Donald Trump, for that matter) connected with the normal crowd, arguing about the futility of sending their sons to die for Ukraine, Afghanistan, or Libya. That has more impact than a bunch of Foreign Affairs Snapshots.

This recent debate on Ukraine, therefore, has brought forth troubling questions for those trying to sell oxymoronic “progressive” foreign policy realism, which took a hell of a beating in the last few weeks.


Dr. Sumantra Maitra is a national-security fellow at The Center for the National Interest; a non-resident fellow at the James G Martin Center; and an elected early career historian member at the Royal Historical Society. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, and can be reached on Twitter @MrMaitra.

Why Are Energy Prices Everywhere So High? Democrats


REPORTED BY: DANIEL TURNER | JANUARY 24, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/24/why-are-energy-prices-everywhere-so-high-democrats/

Mystic Generating Station, Massachusetts

When President Biden warned of a bleak and deadly winter, he was referring to the Covid-19 outbreak that he promised to “shut down.” While he has failed to curb the virus, his policies have unfortunately been more successful reining in our once thriving energy industry. At the one-year mark of his administration running the Departments of Interior and Energy and determining regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency, anyone paying a bill sees the results. Oil prices have nearly doubled since Biden’s inauguration.

Despite the longing of green activists worldwide, we are in fact, a fossil fuel-driven economy, and all prices have gone up dramatically: gasfoodutilitiesshippingdurable goods. Biden’s inflation, now at 40-year highs of 7 percent, is now the number-one issue among voters and will no doubt hang over every race this November. The only logical response for an embattled president is changing the narrative. So, Biden bought a puppy.

To be fair, Biden alone is not to blame. The entire far left is. For years, leftist politicians have attacked the energy industry in the name of “climate change” and for years those of us who know the industry have warned of dire consequences.

The Left’s Insanity On Energy Supply

Four years ago, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey started using her office to prevent pipeline construction. Without a constant supply, power plants turned elsewhere for reliable natural gas: Russia. Despite the absolute insanity of sending Commonwealth checks to Vladimir Putin rather than Pennsylvania, Healey insisted it was better for the climate. Even when the Massachusetts electric grid was teetering on failure, she insisted that transatlantic cargo ships were an improvement over domestic pipelines to a neighboring state. It was insanity then. It’s worse now.

Massachusetts joins the ranks of many European nations enriching Putin. He has used the surplus to build his army along Ukraine preparing to invade. You didn’t think he was going to build orphanages, did you? It is Vladimir Putin, after all. Maybe the Russian army can have a disclaimer, like the ones Healey applies to campaign ads. “This army brought to you by climate change activists.”

Writing for Forbes, energy analyst David Blackmon breaks down the current state of electricity generation in New England. Despite the subsidies and the posturing of Northeastern climate-conscious Democrat politicians like Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Green New Deal author Edward Markey, the region has increased use of the very fossil fuels they try so hard to eliminate. Blasted New Englanders and their… heat.

They are also importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Caribbean because of the now four-year old Healey logic: why buy inexpensively from your friend what you can buy at a premium from a stranger? Add to that the few thousand miles in an ocean tanker and you get a perfect formula for being an eco-warrior.

Reduced Production

Supply is becoming an ongoing problem for the energy industry. The United States is currently producing about 1.5 million barrels of crude oil fewer per day than pre-pandemic levels. Worse, investment in the industry is down nearly 25 percent from that period. Why? Biden.

Fossil fuels are a labor and market-intensive industry, and they rely on government cooperation. That means a secretary of Energy who does not laugh when asked about industry challenges. That means an Interior secretary who does not say publicly “it would be great to stop all oil and gas leases on public lands.” Investors are not going to gamble on the Biden variable, even with oil reaching seven-year highs.

Government is dropping the ball. It’s mid-January, and we have a lot of winter ahead of us. Between the high prices and the scarce supply, consumers should be worried.

Lessons from the Texas Freeze

Last year, Texas experienced a terrible winter storm that shut down its wind turbine electricity production. Sadly, 246 people died in that storm. For decades, Texas Republicans bought into the green energy myths, quietly allowing the notion that fossil fuels were the enemy to fester in their policy hearts. They introduced “renewable energy mandates.” When the storm of February 2021 froze the wind turbines, supporters of the renewable energy mandates quickly came to the green defense. This was not about science or facts: this was about defending ideology.

“Don’t Blame Wind Turbines” blared Time Magazine, along with USA TodayThe Washington Post, and of course, The New York Times. The laughable, knee-jerk reaction brings up a metaphysical dilemma: if the absence of something is no different than its presence, does it have any value? Or even exist? If the wind turbines failed, and make no mistake they failed completely, but their failure does not matter, then how can they have measurable success?

All of these outlets blame the fiasco in Texas on natural gas pipelines, as fossil fuels are, and will always be, the reliable backup to green energy. The renewable energy advocates, desperate not to have a failure on the books, contend that in certain conditions natural gas must overperform. During that storm it did not, and therefore is at fault. Renewables are asked to do the bare minimum, demand perfect conditions, and if any variable is introduced, they get to throw in the towel and cast aspersions on the real performers.

If Texas Republicans fall victim to the green energy siren calls, then what hope does New England have? New England, the bastion of unblemished liberalism, back to burning oil instead of cleaner natural gas, running low on LNG, buying supplies from Russia and the Caribbean, adding to ocean pollution with more tankers, sacrificing American jobs, and enriching Putin.

Again, 246 people were victims of Texas’ green energy dreams. It’s the nameless, the powerless, the voiceless, who die at the hands of the state because of political decisions based on ideology. And their numbers are going to climb unless there is a major reversal at the federal and state level.


White House Forced to Issue Clarification on Gesture Biden Made in Opening Seconds of Putin Meeting


Reported by Erin Coates | June 16, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/white-house-forced-issue-clarification-gesture-biden-made-opening-seconds-putin-meeting/

The White House quickly issued a clarification that President Joe Biden’s answer to a reporter’s question Wednesday in Geneva was not what it seemed. Prior to Biden’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Switzerland, the two leaders appeared together for a brief and chaotic photo opportunity, according to The Associated Press. When a reporter asked if Putin could be trusted, Biden appeared to nod in agreement.

“Inside, a pooler shouted Mr. President, do you trust Putin? Biden nodded yes up and down,” CBS News reporter Kathryn Watson tweeted, quoting the print pool. Political reporter Yamiche Alcindor added that it appeared that Biden “looked directly at the reporter and nodded affirmatively.”

The White House communications staff moved quickly to claim the president wasn’t answering the Putin question but was just giving “a general head nod in the direction of the media.”

“During a chaotic free for all with members of the press shouting questions over each other, the President gave a general head nod in the direction of the media,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told Alcindor.

“He wasn’t responding to any question or anything other than the chaos.”

White House Communications Director Kate Beddingfield offered a similar explanation, adding that two days ago Biden said “verify, then trust” in relation to Putin.

Biden has previously called Putin a “killer” and has claimed that as vice president a decade ago he looked into Putin’s eyes and told him he was missing a “soul.”

Journalists and security officers were shoving to get into the small room Wednesday, creating a bit of chaos prior to the meeting, according to the AP.

YOU CAN READ THE REST OF THIS REPORT AT https://www.westernjournal.com/white-house-forced-issue-clarification-gesture-biden-made-opening-seconds-putin-meeting/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=aa-breaking&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=firefly

Gallup Poll Disaster for Media: Concern Over Russia Ranked 33rd


Reported By Benjamin Arie | July 19, 2018 at 2:07pm

The mainstream media is horribly out of touch with the American people.

That’s the best conclusion that can be drawn after a new poll from the well-respected Gallup organization revealed that despite wall-to-wall coverage and liberal hand-wringing over Trump and Russia, voters just aren’t that bothered.

Over the last week, much ink was spilled over President Donald Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin, the controversial leader of Russia.

Both mainstream and left-leaning outlets — can anybody tell them apart? — tried desperately to paint the diplomatic visit as a blunder for Trump, and tried to tie it to a larger narrative of Russia influencing the 2016 election while controlling Trump.

That claim is not proven, and is flimsy at best. Still, the old guard media flew into a tizzy. Time Magazine morphed the faces of Putin and Trump into one on its latest cover, not-so-subtly implying that the former KGB agent and New York billionaire were one and the same.

Other voices implied that Trump was a traitor who needed to resign or be forcibly removed from office for, er, acting as the chief diplomat and meeting with a powerful country on neutral ground.

The media hysteria over phantom Trump-Russia connections goes back to the 2016 election, but there’s one big problem: Americans just aren’t accepting the narrative.

Despite mainstream outlets hammering the Russia angle almost endlessly, voters have basically shrugged and turned their focus to other things.

A recent Gallup poll tells the story. The research group asked a broad sample of Americans what they thought was the “most important problem” facing America today. To the chagrin of liberals, the results are good for Donald Trump, and appallingly bad for the Russian boogeyman narrative.

As of June 2018, the vast majority of citizens named non-economic problems as the most important issues facing the nation. Of those, “dissatisfaction with government” ranked the highest, while “immigration / illegal aliens” was a close second.

Both of those issues potentially bode well for Trump and conservatives in the 2018 and 2020 elections.

And the Russian narrative? It barely made the list. Less than 0.5 percent of respondents to the Gallup poll named “the situation with Russia” as their top concern. A staggering 32 issues, ranging from unemployment to crime, all ranked higher on the list of concerns than Russia.

Now, it should be noted that the recent meeting between Trump and Putin happened after the latest Gallup results were collected. If the Helsinki summit influenced the public’s concern over Russia, it would be reflected on next month’s polling.

With that said, one look at how Americans viewed the Russian problem over the last seven months reveals that they have been largely apathetic to the media narrative and even hysteria on the issue.

Between December 2017 and June 2018, at no point did “the situation with Russia” rise above one percent of responses for the most important issue. Barring some kind of smoking gun evidence linking Trump to the Putin regime, it’s a safe bet that a diplomatic meeting with the Russian president did not suddenly change the minds of voters.

What this shows is that the mainstream media is living in a bubble, and it seems to be getting further removed from reality every day. While they’re wailing about Russia and openly implying that Trump is a traitor to the nation, heartland Americans are seeing through the façade.

In the end, that could be what drives the leftist media most crazy: They’re just not relevant anymore. The American people are doing something much more powerful than fighting the one-sided media narrative. They’re simply ignoring it.

Terror Expert on What He Saw Going into Summit: Media Is Completely Off-Base


Reported By Ben Marquis | July 17, 2018 at 12:28pm

There was great consternation and outrage among the media and Democrats — as well as some Republicans — following President Donald Trump’s summit in Helsinki, Finland, with Russian President Vladimir Putin. While the harsh criticisms and shouts of “treason” from the hard left and NeverTrump right are more than a little disconcerting, they are not the least bit surprising as that sort of reaction has become rather predictable in this day and age.

Indeed, the stage was set ahead of the summit for just such a reaction by the media and Democrats, who displayed their “glaring hypocrisy” with regard to their coverage of Trump’s diplomatic meeting as opposed to the diplomatic meetings held by former President Barack Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

That was the message delivered on “Fox & Friends” on Sunday morning by former U.S. Army Special Forces member and anti-terrorism expert Jim Hanson, who pointed out the disparate ways in which Trump, Obama and Clinton were treated by the establishment and media following their particular dealings with Russia.

Co-host Pete Hegseth began the segment by recalling Clinton’s embarrassing attempt in 2009 to hit the “reset” button with Russia, using a hokey red plastic button that actually had the wrong Russian word printed on it to symbolize the development in U.S./Russian relations.

“And Hillary walks into that meeting asking for nothing with her giant button that actually said ‘overcharge’ in Russian, and she’s telling them, ‘ok, you can have whatever you want from us,’” Hanson said.

“Even a more glaring example was when President Obama was talking to (then-President) Medvedev of the Russian Republic and tells him, ‘after my next election I’ll have more flexibility,‘” he continued.

“Now that is him admitting that he was lying to the American public during that election cycle, and afterwards he would give Russia what they wanted. But yet, where is the outrage? Where is the press saying we should investigate that?” Hanson asked.

Hegseth asked what sort of “flexibility” Obama was referring to in that particular remark, and if it meant allowing Russia to annex Crimea, invade Ukraine or even meddle in our elections.

“All of it, and that’s the problem Pete,” Hanson replied. “You know the entire focus and entire stature of the Obama foreign policy was cringing capitulation, it was ‘America last’ — ‘what do you guys want, what can we give you’ — and it ended up making the world a much more dangerous place.”

“In that case they were actually talking about missile defense, so the security of the entire free world for any attack by any crazed person with missiles — which could have included the Russians — is being put at risk because Obama was willing to go ahead and bow down,” Hanson said.

“And now, the media at that point in time had nothing to say, now President Trump wants to have a less antagonistic relationship with the Russians, maybe get them to stop hurting us with North Korea, stop hurting us in Syria, and all of the sudden it’s the worst thing that ever happened,” he continued.

“It’s glaring hypocrisy,” Hanson concluded, to which Hegseth could only reply, “Absolutely it is, every single day of the week.”

When Obama and Clinton reached out and tried to make nice with Russia, they were applauded by the liberal media and establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle, even as Putin and Russia took full advantage of the naïve good faith extended by Obama and Clinton.

Now Trump is seeking to tone down the harsh rhetoric and smooth out the rough relationship between the U.S. and Russia and he has been attacked and smeared as some sort of Putin puppet that has sold out his own nation by the same folks who cheered similar efforts by Trump’s predecessors.

If that isn’t glaring hypocrisy, nothing is.

Russia: Factual Error in Manafort Indictment Shows Case Was ‘Cooked Up’


Reported By Brianna Young | October 31, 2017 at 3:31pm | Source(s): NBC News, NBC News, and Los Angeles Times

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/russia-factual-error-manafort-indictment-shows-case-cooked/

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his top deputy, Rick Gates, are facing serious charges regarding the consulting business Manafort used to operate. Manafort and Gates have been indicted on 12 charges, including “conspiracy against the United States,” “conspiracy to launder money” and “false statements.”

But now, Russia is claiming the allegations against both men are “cooked up” and not part of a “serious investigation.” The Russian foreign ministry cited what they say is one glaring factual discrepancy in the 31-page indictment: the fact that the indictment referred to Yulia Tymoshenko as the former president of Ukraine.

Tymoshenko served twice as Ukraine’s prime minister before being imprisoned in 2011 on embezzlement charges, according to NBC News.

“I liked a lot the bit that, it turns out, according to the recent findings of American enforcers, the Ukrainian president before (Viktor) Yanukovych was Yulia Tymoshenko,” said Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.

Zakharova claims this one error puts the entire document’s validity into question.

“This is a very important moment showing the way how, once again, this document had been made, cooked up,” Zakharova said. “You understand when you talk about serious investigation one cannot allow things like that.”

The indictment against Manafort and Gates claims that both men made of millions of dollars thanks to their lobbying efforts in Ukraine.

They, in addition to George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign policy adviser who pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI, are the first people to be charged as part of the ongoing investigation into Russia’s meddling in last year’s election.

Papadopoulos’ guilty plea led the White House to immediately distance itself from him. President Donald Trump even tweeted that hardly anyone knew who Papadopoulos was.

The White House said Monday that the indictments against Manafort have nothing to do with the president, as reported by the Los Angeles Times. As for the charges against Manafort, NBC reported they are going to be tough to beat.

“It’s a very strong case, of course it’s not about last year’s election, but they have a long list of transactions and they have a lot of facts to support the indictment,” said Jennifer Rodgers, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New York.

But if Russian officials can cast doubt into the validity of the indictment, it may give Manafort the leverage he needs.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has already claimed on several occasions the country did not meddle in the 2016 election.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday October 23, 2017


Developing: Putin Issues Alarming Orders at NK Border… Things Just Escalated


eported 

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/developing-putin-issues-border/

The biggest sign from a world leader that trouble may be afoot on the Korean Peninsula after Kim Jong Un’s latest missile launch comes not from the crazy fat kid himself. Instead, Vladimir Putin made headlines when his Russian government quietly ordered 1,500 people out of a city close to the North Korean border.

The U.K. Express reported that Russian media outlets announced the alarming evacuation shortly after the latest missile test by North Korea, which flew over the Japanese island of Hokkaido.

A verbal order was given to relocate 1,500 people to safe areas, Russian social media outlet Mash reported Tuesday afternoon. “The order came from the regional department of the Russian Ministry of Emergencies.”

The movement was later described as a “training exercise” — activated by North Korea’s missile launch — by another Russian media outlet, FedPress.ru.

“A relocation scheme is being exercised as part of the training,” a source said.

Vladivostok, a city of just over 600,000 people, is Russia’s largest port on the Pacific Ocean. A city of significant military importance, it’s the closest major Russian urban area to the country’s 24-mile land border with North Korea.

Vladivostok is also set to be the site of a summit between Moscow and the Japanese government in the coming weeks, as a sideline to the Eastern Economic Forum. According to the Japan Times, tensions over North Korea are expected to be one of the topics. Nikolai Patrushev, an aide to Vladimir Putin, will reportedly travel to Japan in the coming days to help set the agenda for the meeting.

An evacuation from a border city in the days following a North Korean missile launch and in the weeks preceding a major economic forum and summit aren’t pleasant auguries for those who want peace and stability. Granted, 1,500 people being moved isn’t exactly going to make a dent in a city where that represents 1/400th of the permanent population. However, one also assumes those 1,500 individuals also played some sort of role in Russia’s civil or defense infrastructure, particularly given the fact that the Russian Ministry of Emergencies was involved and that it was part of a “training exercise.”

Several weeks ago, Kim Jong Un sensibly declared a moratorium on his latest spate of missile tests. Now, the crazy fat kid we all knew and loathed is back, and he’s upped the ante by launching the latest missile right over Japan. Given all that, it’s not just that Vladimir Putin’s government is evacuating its citizens to safety. It’s that we can see this as being the first of many such evacuations. Things look like they’re about to escalate in a major way.

H/T U.K. Daily Star

Putin Goes to Brink of WW3 With New “Red Line” Against US


URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/putin-brink-red-line-against-us/

Advertisement – story continues below

In the wake of the United States shooting down a Syrian regime fighter jet, the Kremlin seemed to be teetering on the brink of war, drawing a red line against America.

ABC News reported that the Russian Defense Ministry warned Monday that it would now treat U.S.-led coalition jets flying west of the Euphrates River in Syria as targets after a U.S. Navy fighter jet shot down a Syrian fighter jet that had dropped bombs on Syrian rebel forces Sunday. “(I)t it stopped short of saying it would shoot any down,” Reuters reported.

According to Sputnik News, the ministry warned that Russian missile defense “would intercept any aircraft in the area of operations of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria.”

“In areas where Russian aviation is conducting combat missions in the Syrian skies, any flying objects, including jets and unmanned aerial vehicles of the international coalition discovered west of the Euphrates River will be followed by Russian air and ground defenses as air targets,” the ministry announced.

Additionally, Russia claimed the U.S. did not use the de-confliction hotline to warn them before the downing of the jet. In the statement, the ministry said it would no longer participate in the de-confliction hotline.

Reuters reported that U.S. military officials confirmed that a US F/A-18E Super Hornet fighter jet had shot down a Syrian SU-22 aircraft after the Syrian jet reportedly dropped bombs near fighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces, which is backed by the U.S. The SDF is an alliance of Kurdish and Arab soldiers fighting Islamic State group terrorists in Raqqa.

Advertisement – story continues below

Russia is backing the Syrian government in its civil war against rebel forces, and it criticized the U.S. Navy fighter jet’s action as a violation of Syria’s sovereignty.

This is the first incident between U.S. warplanes and Syria’s air force since the country’s civil war began six years ago.

If Putin decides to follow through on these threats, he may learn the hard way that the Trump administration’s red lines are less flexible than those of former President Barack Obama.

H/T Breitbart

Putin Makes Dangerous Move, Sends 3 Warships to NATO Waters


URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/russia-copies-trump-armada-ships/

Three Russian warships armed with long-range cruise missiles have been spotted in the Baltic Sea off the coast of Latvia, in what appeared to be a challenge to President Donald Trump, Europe and NATO. The Latvian Army posted to its Twitter account that the Russian ships Liven 551, Serpukhov 603 and the Morshansk 824 were seen in the sea on Sunday. Newsweek reported that the ships were as close as four nautical miles from country’s coast.

The warships were initially deployed to St. Petersburg, Russia, for a Victory Day celebration marking the end of World War II. But the ships left those waters early — Victory Day is May 9 — and headed toward the Baltic Sea, according to the the U.K. Express, which translated Russian news agency Fontanka.

The purpose for the warships in the region was not immediately clear. However, the paper reported that the presence of the vessels was most likely in response to the arrival of the USS Carney in the Baltic Sea, which is also armed with cruise missiles.

The U.S. Navy posted to its Twitter account on Monday that the Carney had crossed seas near Denmark last week, adding that the vessel was “conducting a patrol in support of U.S. national security interests in Europe.”

Advertisement – story continues below

Russian warships suddenly moving into the area — especially after being redirected from a holiday celebration — certainly looks like a response to the U.S. military being there.

Newsweek reported that Mikhail Nenashev, a representative for a Russian naval supporters group, confirmed to Russian news agency RIA Novosti that some deployments were diverted and would not take part in the celebration. He did not elaborate any further.

A Russian source who did not wish to be identified also told Newsweek that fewer ships would participate in the celebration but would not confirm if any changes were related to the presence of the USS Carney.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, no stranger to military provocations, is apparently testing Latvia, which is a member of NATO and the European Union.

Putin would be wise to keep his fleet where it belongs: in port.

Twelve Reasons Why The Paris Climate Talks Are A Total Waste


waving flagby James Delingpole  30 Nov 2015

Over the next 10 days, 140 world leaders – including Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and David Cameron – will descend on Paris to join 40,000 delegates at the UN’s COP21 climate conference.

Here is why they might just as well not have bothered.

1. There has been no ‘global warming’ since 1997

monckton1

So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming.

2. The polar bears are doing just great.

As they have been for the last five decades, during which time their population has increased roughly five-fold. So why does the IUCN still classify them as “vulnerable”? Because the environmentalists needed a cute, fluffy white poster-child for their “the animals are dying and it’s all our fault” campaign, and the snail darter and the California delta smelt just didn’t cut it. So various tame conservation biologists came up with all sorts of nonsense about how polar bear populations were dwindling and how the melting of the ice floes would jeopardize their ability to feed themselves etc. How can you tell a conservation biologist is lying? When his lips move.Settled-Science-600-LA

3. Antarctica is growing.

According to the greenies, this just wasn’t meant to happen. But it is. Even NASA admits this.

4. The Maldives aren’t sinking

Or, if they are, their government is responding in a very odd way. Just a few years back, they were staging photos of their Cabinet meeting underwater to symbolize how threatened they were by “climate change” – a problem that could only be cured, apparently, with the donation of large sums of guilt money from rich Western industrialized nations. But a few months ago they completed work on their 11th international airport. So that all the climate refugees caused by global warming can escape quickly, presumably.Ponzi Scheme

5. Ocean acidification is a myth

If I were an eco-Nazi I would seriously think about killing myself at this point. Ocean acidification was supposed to be their Siegfried Line – the final line of defense if, as has grown increasingly obvious over the last few years, “anthropogenic global warming” theory proved to be a busted flush. But it turns out that ocean acidification is as big a myth as man-made climate change.

a) it’s based on dubious, possibly even fraudulent, research and

b) if anyone’s acidifying the ocean it’s those wretched bloody coral reefs

Solid-Foundation-600-wLogo6. The alarmist climate scientists are talentless low-lives who cannot be trusted

Possibly there are exceptions to this rule, somewhere. But just look at NASA GISS, NOAA and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia/Hadley Centre at the Met Office – three of the main organizations responsible for maintaining the world’s temperature data sets.

NASA has been caught red handed turning cooling trends into warming trends. NOAA is currently under Congressional investigation for its mendacious, politicized attempts to pretend that the “Pause” in global warming doesn’t exist. The CRU was ground zero of the Climategate scandal. The Met Office is a joke. Yet these shysters have the gall to demand that the world’s leaders take urgent action on the basis of their dodgy data.hysteria

7. Winter Is Coming

Sunspot activity is diminishing in a manner worryingly similar to that experienced during the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) when ice fairs were staged on the River Thames and the Dalton Minimum  (1790 to 1830) which gave us Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow and the Year Without A Summer. Some scientists are predicting the imminent return of a Little Ice Age.

8. CO2 is greening the planet

The Sahel region in Africa is getting greener and more fertile. This is something we should be celebrating, not trying clumsily and expensively to prevent.

9. There has been no increase in “extreme weather events”.

Who says so? The IPCC in its most recent Assessment Report. Droughts, heatwaves, heavy rain events, cyclones, storms: they just haven’t increased in the alarmists assured us they would.

10. People are losing interest in global warming.

A) they don’t believe it’s a real threat,

b) they keep being reminded of things that ARE real threatsBaal Worship

11. $1.5 trillion is a lot of money to pay every year for a problem that doesn’t exist

This, according to Climate Change Business Journal, is how much it costs every year to “combat climate change.”  $1,500,000,000,000 may not sound like a lot of money when the world’s polar bears, not to mention “the children of the future” are at stake. But you’d be surprised: spend $1,500,000,000,000 here and $1,500,000,000,000 there and pretty soon you’re talking serious money.Cloward Pevin with explanation

12. It will make (almost) no difference

If all the world’s leading nations stick to the carbon-reduction commitments they will make in Paris this week, then they will stave off “global warming” by the end of this century by 0.170 degrees C. Oh – and that’s the optimistic scenario, calculated by Bjorn Lomborg, assuming that countries like, say, China don’t lie or cheat about how much CO2 they’re burning secretly.

His more pessimistic – ie more realistic – scenario is that the best we can hope for is a reduction in global warming by the end of the century of 0.048 degrees C.

This temperature reduction – five hundredths of one degree – is so small as to be almost immeasurable. But if you want to know what it feels like, Willis Eschenbach has done the calculations. It’s the equivalent of walking five metres higher up a mountain. Or, if you prefer, climbing two flights of stairs.

And there you have it: the lunacy of the Paris climate conference in one sentence: $1.5 trillion every year till the end of the century to effect the equivalent of walking to your bedroom.

DELUSIONAL All about the vote A Collection In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Russian military forces start airstrikes in Syria – Ministry of Defense


waving flagPublished time: 30 September, 2015; Edited time: 30 September, 2015

 MiG-29 jet © Vladimir Astapkovich

MiG-29 jet © Vladimir Astapkovich / RIA Novosti

In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Commander of the Russian Armed Forces, Vladimir Putin, warplanes of the Russian Air Space Forces today [Wednesday] have started an aerial operation, involving  pinpoint strikes on ground targets of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL] terrorists in Syria,” spokesperson for the Russian Defense Ministry, Igor Konashenkov, said.

The Russia airstrikes are targeting military equipment, communication centers, vehicles, arms and fuel depots, belonging to IS terrorists, Konashenkov added.

READ MORE: Preemptive strike is how you fight terrorism – Putin on Syrian engagement

Russia’s Rossiya 24 channel said that the first airstrikes were carried out by two Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircrafts “213km north of [the Syrian capital] Damascus” near the city of Hama.

Meanwhile, Syrian state television has named at least seven areas targeted by Russian air strikes. They include areas around the cities of Homs and Hama, which are separated from each other by 44 kilometers.

Earlier, a US official told Reuters that Moscow gave Washington one-hour advanced notice of its operations. The bombing is taking place in western Syria, near the city Homs, the official added.  A Pentagon official also told Russia’s RIA Novosti that Russia urged the US to clear the skies for the operation. US State Department spokesman John Kirby said that Russia indeed requested that American aircraft avoid Syrian airspace during the Russian air missions, but the US military will not comply.

“The US-led coalition will continue to fly missions over Iraq and Syria as planned and in support of our international mission to degrade and destroy ISIL (Islamic State),” Kirby said.Picture1

READ MORE: Russia, Iran, Iraq & Syria setting up ‘joint information center’ to coordinate anti-ISIS operations 

Following the reports, Vladimir Putin said all Moscow’s foreign partners have been informed about Russian plans in Syria. During his meeting with the government, the president stressed that Russia’s participation in the anti-terrorist operation in Syria is based on international law and is being conducted “in accordance with an official request from the president of the Syrian Arab Republic [Bashar Assad].”

why

On Wednesday morning, the upper chamber of the Russian parliament unanimously gave formal consent to President Putin to use the country’s military in Syria to tackle Islamic State and other terror groups. The Russian air campaign in Syria is commencing just a few days after Putin’s address at the UN, in which he called for an international anti-terrorist effort in the country. The Russian president also met with US counterpart Barack Obama on the sidelines of the 70th UN General Assembly, with the two leaders agreeing that Moscow and Washington have common interest in Syria.

Break-Glass-600-wLogo In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Obama has turned Putin into the world’s most powerful leader


waving flagBy Benny Avni

 

The baton was officially transferred Monday to the world’s new sole superpower — and Vladimir Putin willingly picked it up. President Obama (remember him?) embraced the ideals espoused by the United Nations’ founders 70 years ago: Diplomacy and “international order” will win over time, while might and force will lose.

Putin, too, appealed to UN laws (as he sees them), but he also used his speech to announce the formation of a “broad international coalition” to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq. “Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces” to fight “those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind,” he said.

And who’d lead this new coalition? Hint: Moscow has always celebrated the Allies’ World War II victory as a Russian-Putin over Obamaled fete.

Oh, and if anyone wondered which Syrian players the coalition would rely on as allies, Putin made it clear: “No one but President [Bashar al-]Assad’s armed forces and Kurd militia are fighting the Islamic State.” That, of course, isn’t Obama’s view. America’s president said he opposed the “logic of supporting tyrants.” After all, Assad “drops barrel bombs on innocent children.”

But Putin has troops in Syria, is arming Assad to the teeth and signed a pact of anti-ISIS intelligence-sharing with Assad, Iran and the leaders of Iraq (the ones America fought to put in power).Bear

And after meeting Obama for the first time in two years Monday, he spoke vaguely about future “joint air attacks on ISIS.” But no agreement on Assad was reached in the 90-minute meeting.

Meantime, if Obama has any realistic Syria plan of his own — beyond having Assad magically “transitioned” out of the country and simultaneously fighting ISIS — he failed to present it during his UN speech. Or any other time.

Instead, he scolded an “isolated” Putin for using force to annex Crimea and other parts of Ukraine. “Imagine if, instead, Russia had engaged in true diplomacy,” said Obama. “That would be better for Ukraine, but also better for Russia, and better for the world.” Then again, imagine if Obama’s eloquence were backed by, say, American-led NATO. Would Putin so easily be able to eat up Ukraine and take over Syria? Not likely.Stand-Off-590-LA

But even as he chided Russia, China and even Iran for being steeped in the policies of the past, it was Obama who at times sounded like a throwback to days of yore.

His celebration of the United Nations was reminiscent of scenes from 1950s movies that portrayed it as a place where problems are actually resolved. In reality, along the decades (and even more so in the last six years), the UN became so paralyzed that it can no longer serve as arbiter of global security.

Obama’s speech was, as ever, full of promise. His turn from using “might” to claiming to have “right” on his side and relying on diplomacy have led to America’s opening up to Cuba and a key deal with Iran on nukes. But these are yet to yield positive results. “If this deal is implemented,” he said of Iran, “our world is safer.” Big if.Russian-Bear

By contrast, Putin’s deployment of forces in Syria and arming of Assad create facts on the ground. They have also propelled him to the top by taking initiative on today’s most consequential world fight.

Although Obama received much less applause during his Monday speech than in past years, he’s still well-liked at the world body. Yet those who count, the ones he scolded in his speech — Putin, Assad, China’s Xi Jinping and even Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani — weren’t in their seats to hear his words.

Because as forceful as Obama’s words are, they’re rarely backed by action.

Putin? Nobody applauded him. He’s more interested in being feared than liked. Then again, his words, at most, are meant to explain forceful action. That’s how Putin seized leadership from America.FLT-17-590-LI

And that, to borrow from Obama’s speech, is bad for Syria, where the war will continue as long as Assad remains in power. It’s bad for Europe and Syria’s neighbors, which have no idea what to do with that war’s refugees.

And it’s bad for America. Because sooner or later, after more bloodshed and under even worse conditions than now, our next president will be called upon to retake the leadership baton from Putin. And that could prove tricky.

Indenification of Obama B2A_FvyCMAE14px In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Putin Deploys 28 Combat Planes in Syria, Taunting West to “Join Forces Against ISIS”


Posted By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com On September 22, 2015

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/putin-deploys-28-combat-planes-in-syria-taunting-west-to-join-forces-against-isis

Putin Deploys 28 Combat Planes in Syria, Taunting West to “Join Forces Against ISIS”

Who are the real enemies in the Middle East?

Is it ISIS – ransacking, raping and beheading its way across the region to carve out a new Caliphate and threatening terrorism inside U.S. borders – or is it Putin and his gang, cornering American statesmen in a deadly game of chess that could lead at any time to all-out nuclear war?

The answers may be conflicting, but it is clear that Obama has no idea what he is doing, and no way of containing all that confronts U.S. interests overseas. Check.

With Ukraine still boiling in the background, Vladimir Putin has taken things up a notch in Syria, by deploying 28 combat planes to aid Assad’s regime for reasons that don’t exactly rule out offensive attacks, or downplay concerns about Russian aggression..

This is just the latest and most pointed maneuver in the build-up of what has been dubbed “the largest deployment of Russian forces outside the former Soviet Union” since its collapse.

AFP reported that the Russia has sent in more than two dozen fighter planes to aid Assad against ISIS:

Russia has deployed 28 combat planes in Syria, US officials said Monday, confirming the latest move in Moscow’s increasing military presence in the war-torn nation.

“There are 28 fighter and bomber aircraft” at an airfield in the western Syrian province of Latakia, one of the officials told AFP… A second official… added there were about 20 Russian combat and transport helicopters at the base. That official also said Russia was operating drones over Syria.

This already complicated proxy war is taking on new dimensions, and arming up for a new phase of conflict.

As SHTF recently noted:

Russia’s military build-up in Syria has grown to include the shipment of a half-dozen highly sophisticated battle tanks — and more troops— [the] first clear sign of offensive weapons arriving in Syria,” a defense official told Fox News. “This is the largest deployment of Russian forces outside the former Soviet Union since the collapse of the USSR.”

The catch, of course, is that Russia is preparing to defend Assad against ISIS – not to pick a fight with the West. But looks could be deceiving, and the schism between East and West cuts too deep to allow for a unified front against terrorism.

AFP reports:

The United States has warned that Russian military backing for the Syrian regime only risks sending more extremists to the war-torn country and could further hamper any effort at bringing peace.

Moscow, meanwhile, has been on a diplomatic push to get the coalition of Western and regional powers fighting the Islamic State group to join forces with Assad against the jihadists.

The maneuver is interesting, because evidence continually points towards the covert Western-funding of Islamic State forces, as well as significant overlap between ISIS and anti-Assad rebel forces.

Putin’s latest tact would call the United States on the need to beat back the supposedly-unintentional outgrowth and takeover by the extremist ISIS forces in the region, and prioritize taking out America’s “number one terrorist threat” before belaboring the removal of Bashar al-Assad and empire building in the Middle East.

However, the bulk of United States’ diplomacy so far in the region appears much more concerned with Russia’s overt involvement than with eradicating ISIS forces. Record-sized war games have been acted out by both sides, and many military drills have doubled as stand offs that nearly sparked full-on war, according to reports. Will Putin call their bluff?

And what will it mean for the pending deal with Iran?

There is much, of course, that isn’t being said here, but on the surface, taking ISIS out of the equation would surely be a good thing.

As one commenter stated, “Excellent news. It’s time to get rid of the rebels so Syrians can return home.”

Good idea, only don’t hold your breath.

Read more:

Putin Sends Tanks to Syria: “Largest Deployment of Outside Russian Forces Since USSR Collapse”

Assad Blames U.S. for Syrian Exodus: “Worried About Refugees? Stop Supporting Terrorists”

Elite Financier George Soros Warns Of World War III: “Not An Exaggeration”

Experts Say War With Russia Was Imminent “66 Times in Last 18 Months”


95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Putin Taunts Obama: Two Russian Bombers Fly Near Two U.S. States


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/13/putin-taunts-obama-two-russian-bombers-fly-near-two-u-s-states/

June 13, 2014 By

Obama Putin
Reports from the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) earlier this week indicate that four Russian strategic bombers flew close to Alaska while two of the nuclear-capable bombers came within 50 miles of the coast of California. The bombers were accompanied by two aerial refueling tanks. 

Cupid-Is-As-Cupid-DoesThe Washington Free Beacon reports that Navy Captain Jeff Davis, NORAD spokesman, said the planes appeared to be conducting a training mission. He added that when two U.S. F-15 jets were sent out to intercept the bombers, the aircraft acted with professionalism. Davis said, “They typically do long range aviation training in the summer and it is not unusual for them to be more active during this time,” he said. “We assess this was part of training. And they did not enter territorial airspace.”

Not everyone, however, shares NORAD’s assessment that this was an innocent and not unusual training mission.

Rep. Mike Conaway (R., Texas), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, called the Russian flights “intentional provocations.”

“Putin is doing this specifically to try to taunt the U.S. and exercise, at least in the reported world, some sort of saber-rattling, muscle-flexing kind of nonsense,” Conaway said in an interview. “Truth of the matter is we would have squashed either one of those [bombers] like baby seals.”

“It’s a provocation and it’s unnecessary. But it fits in with [Putin’s] macho kind of saber-rattling,” he said, adding that he expects Russia will carry out more of these kinds of incidents in the future.

A former NORAD Alaska commander had even harsher words and assessment of these nuclear-capable Russian bombers flying so close to the United States. Lt. General Thomas McInerney is retired from the Air Force and says never, to his recollection, has such an event happened, even during the Cold War.

“Again we see the Obama administration through their covert—but overt to Mr. Putin—unilateral disarmament, inviting adventurism by the Russians,” McInerney said in an email.

“At the height of the Cold War I do not remember them getting this close. Mr. Putin had to approve this mission and he is just showing his personal contempt for President Obama right after meeting him in Normandy less than a week ago,” McInerney said.

ss 07McInerney sees such actions by Putin as a sign of utter disrespect to the Obama presidency. 

Russian President Vladmir Putin has shown by his actions that he has little respect for Barack Obama. Critics of Obama have argued that the world neither fears nor respects the United States any longer under Obama’s leadership. Despite Russia’s takeover of Crimea, a rise of terrorism at the hands of al Qaeda and their affiliates, and the violent Islamic takeover of Iraq, Obama actually said on Thursday that the world is less violent than it has ever been. Really 01

Whether such a statement is based on naivety or desire to cover up his glaring failure on foreign affairs, it sends the wrong message on a world stage where the United States was once seen as the premier super power and a force to be reckoned with. In sending these bombers so close to the coast of California, Putin is seen by some to be flexing his muscles in an attempt to find out how and if Obama will respond.ss 10

About Jennifer Burke

Jennifer BurkeJennifer Burke became politically active for the first time at the Porkulus Tea Party in Seattle in February 2009. She was a speaker at the Seattle Tax Day Tea Party at Westlake Center on April 15, 2010, was featured in a popular Tea Party video, Proud to be a Teabagger, that has gone viral on YouTube and many top conservative blogs, and was a speaker at the WA 4 WI rally in support of Scott Walker. View all Posts by Jennifer Burke

Confused

PI 20Article collective closing

 

 

 

 

Putin and state-sponsored terrorism?


Allen B West Banner

http://allenbwest.com/2014/03/putin-state-sponsored-terrorism/#OI34kDk2ZFDG1R5l.99

Written by Allen West on March 9, 2014

Image: Yuri Kozyrez - NOOR for Time

Image: Yuri Kozyrez – NOOR for Time

Last Friday, Time reported that Russian troops attempted to take a Ukrainian military base by storm on the Crimean peninsula by ramming the gates with a truck and rushing inside.

According to the report, within two hours, the Russian forces managed to seize part of the Ukrainian air force base at the edge of Sevastopol. After failed negotiations for the surrender of the entire base, the Russian troops pulled back before midnight. Armed pro-Russian paramilitaries in civilian clothing were still in the area, the spokesman said, but the two Russian military trucks that had rammed the gate of the A-2355 base outside Sevastopol were gone, as were the several dozen Russian troops involved. “Now only the radicals are left,” he said, referring to the pro-Russian militants who call themselves “self-defense forces” on the Crimean peninsula.

Now, let me get this straight, Vladimir Putin says there are no Russian troops in the Crimea. But two Russian military trucks were used in this attack against a sovereign nation’s military base. Imagine if the Mexican Army had troops come across the border and tried to seize Ft. Bliss Texas.

However, what is most interesting is “armed pro-Russian militants” are working in coordination with the Russian military. Sounds to me like Putin is conducting state-sponsored terrorist activities. As well, according to the Geneva Convention, all combat belligerents are supposed to wear uniforms and display their national markings. So, the real question: is Vladimir Putin in violation of the Geneva Convention and should Russia be considered for listing as a state sponsor of terrorism? After all, we call Islamic militants terrorists don’t we, or are these armed pro-Russian paramilitaries extremists?

I am waiting to hear what President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Secretary Hagel have to say on the matter. Sounds like crickets.

President Clinton and President Obama Promised to Protect Disarmed Ukraine


Rush's Banner

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/03/05/president_clinton_and_president_obama_promised_to_protect_disarmed_ukraine

March 05, 2014

RUSH: This is getting out of hand now.  Hillary Clinton is saying that Vladimir Putin is a Nazi, and Putin is saying that the Ukrainians are Nazis, and Tony Kornheiser says that the whole state of Arizona is Nazis.  The only person that’s not a Nazi anymore is me.  This is progress, ladies and gentlemen.  It’s like a Mel Brooks movie.  I mean, everybody is just throwing this name out.  And of course Putin is acting like Hilter did.  You gotta give Hillary that, with what he’s doing here.  I mean, it’s gonna irritate some progressives who think that Putin has the right to do whatever he wants to do.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Ladies and gentlemen, this is hilarious.  CNN, the rest of the Drive-Bys are all in hysterics that a United Nations envoy was supposedly almost kidnapped and threatened by an armed man in Crimea and told to get out of the country.  “A UN envoy!  That’s unacceptable! Who do they think they are, threatening to kidnap and kick out of the country a UN envoy?” I’m not kidding.  The media is just beside themselves over this kind of an insult.

I want to mention something here that came up late in the program yesterday, and I’m repeating it here at a different time in the program hoping to reach more people with this ’cause the Drive-Bys are not talking about this.  I mentioned yesterday that Bill Clinton in 1994 (and then the Obama administration in 2009, reaffirmed it) gave official diplomatic assurances to Ukraine that their borders would be safe in exchange for the Ukrainians gutting their army and completely doing away with their sizable nuclear deterrent.

This has not been reported other than the UK Daily Mail has now published an article that reminds us that that wasn’t all Obama did for Ukraine.  But the point is… Because the media isn’t telling you, I want to stress this again. As you’re watching what happened, as you watch us act outraged that Putin would do this, there were the number of signatories to this agreement.  The UK, John Major and the Ukrainian prime minister. It was Boris Yeltsin for the Russian Federation, and Bill Clinton, and there was the ChiCom leader.

There were five of them, and they signed. They promised. They promised Ukraine that their borders would not be attacked, that their sovereignty would not be challenged, and that they would be considered for admission to the European Union. There was all this stuff dangling carrots if they would just gut their army and do away with their nuclear deterrent — and Ukraine did.  That agreement was reaffirmed in 2009 by Barack Obama.

So the Ukrainians cannot defend themselves against this encroachment by Russia, which is a violation of that agreement, by the way.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to close the loop on this Ukraine thing, get into the IRS, and then come back to Ukraine with more details on what’s happening.  But just to remind you, ’cause I think this is huge.  I think Ukraine bought it hook, line, and sinker.  They gave up their military. They had a nuclear arsenal.  They gave it up in exchange for a promise that their borders would not be invaded and their sovereignty would remain intact.

Putin wasn’t a signatory, but Boris Yeltsin was, and he signed for the Russian Federation, which is still the governing body before Putin puts the Soviet Union back together.  It was Bill Clinton that got the whole thing started, and this whole thing was reaffirmed in 2009.  Now, the UK Daily Mail today adds information to this.  Their headline is: “Flashback: Senator Obama Pushed Bill That Helped Destroy More Than 15,000 TONS of Ammunition, 400,000 Small Arms and 1,000 Anti-Aircraft Missiles in Ukraine.”

In addition to the gutting of the military and getting rid of the nukes, it was Obama as a senator who pushed legislation that further weakened Ukraine.  From the article: “As a US senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition — weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea.”

Because they don’t really have an army, not much of one. They gutted it.  They didn’t get rid of it; they just gutted it — all on the assurance, reaffirmed again in 2009 by Obama.  Obama reassured them. This was as president. It was as a senator that he engaged in legislation that further weakened them. In 2009 he reaffirmed, “Don’t worry, we will protect you — and so will the ChiComs, and so will the UK, and the Russians have promised that they will not invade you.”

That’s all out the window now, and the media is not reporting that.

“In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site. The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds.”

Obama and Luger “returned to Washington and declared that the US should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.”  Obama’s been disarming United States as quickly as he can, but he offered money, $48 million to Ukraine to downsize.  At the time, Obama said, “We need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people and people around world, by keeping them out of conflicts around the world.”

Now, stop and think.  Folks, this kind of thing really matters when you’re a guy like Putin and you’re sizing up your advisory, and you’re looking at a guy, and you see Barack Hussein Obama doing this. Now, I have in my Stack of Stuff that Obama was at an elementary school recently.  I have here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers the pictures, and Obama’s latest photo op shows why the global community doesn’t take him seriously.

He’s sitting on a blue, oval-shaped rug, and he’s holding a young student with the teacher sitting nearby, 10 or so other little kids.  He’s in the classroom.  While all this is going on, if you’re Vladimir Putin and you look at this… Remember how a picture of George W. Bush reading to a third grade class? Remember how that was portrayed as, “My God, what kind of guy is this? The World Trade Center’s attacked, and this guy’s reading to kids, and he still reads?”

And look at this.  I’ll tell you what I’ll do.  I’m gonna zoom in on the Dittocam, turn off to do it, zoom out. I’ll just show you this, just so you know.  The reason that I think that this is important is because you always have to look at the way our enemies see this.  The camera’s back on, and there’s be the picture.  In fact, the picture below it is Obama then with his press conference, announcing some things about Ukraine at the same place.

He’s standing on the same rug there that he is sitting on with those kids.  It’s an exact replay of what happened with Bush in the classroom in Florida.  Now, the point is if you’re Vladimir Putin and you know that your adversary is Barack Obama, and Barack Obama has personally traveled to Ukraine to disarm them — if you know that your adversary’s Barack Obama who as senator pushed legislation to disarm Ukraine.

He paid money, $4 million to do it, and reaffirmed a 1995 agreement or ’94 agreement pour basically Ukraine to disarm — what are you gonna do?  You know who your adversary. You know he’s not gonna stop you.  All you have to do is look at Syria or anywhere in the world. Look at the way Obama’s handling Iraq or Afghanistan.  Obama’s running around getting us out of every country. Look at Chuck Hagel proposing downsizing US military to pre-World War II levels.

What would you do if you’re a bad guy bent on reassembling your giant Soviet Union?  So the Ukrainians have no way to stop this militarily, if they were inclined.  And Obama after traveling to Kiev and not only affirming the Clinton agreement in ’94, but taking it further by eliminating 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition and then says we need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people.  Now, stop and think.  If you are Vladimir Putin and you hear the leader of the United States equate disarmament with safety, you have gotta be rubbing your hands together so fast that you can’t believe your good luck.  You are up against an adversary who thinks that safety is you disarming.

Let me put it a different way.  You’re Putin, you’re watching Obama, and you’re up against a guy, Obama, who believes his safety is related to him getting rid of his military.  He goes over there and doubles down on Ukrainian weakness, disarmament, and then claims Ukraine is safer.  If you’re Putin, what are you gonna do?  This is absolute lunacy.  This is a world governed by the aggressive use of force; not doctors, nurses, and clean water.  It’s not governed by bipartisanship and UN resolutions and all that happy horse manure.  This is a world governed by the aggressive use of force, and Obama is celebrating he’s just made Ukraine stronger and safer by completely disarming it.

Forget Putin’s view; what does that tell you about Obama?  And then this little statement:  We need to eliminate these stockpiles in Ukraine for the safety of the Ukrainian people. What, are they gonna shoot themselves?  By keeping these stockpiles and the Ukrainians out of conflicts around the world.  So I guess it’s the Ukrainians were who Obama thought might begin a worldwide march toward domination.  So he had to disarm them, take every means of defense away from them, after promising ’em they wouldn’t need it, then this happens.  Now, I wanted to go through this all again, because you are not being told this. If your only source of news is the Drive-Bys, you are not being told any of this.

Russian Paper: “Once Drug Addict Obama Cannot Fight Against Vladimir Putin”


by   // http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/russian-paper-drug-addict-obama-fight-vladimir-putin/

 

How many people could ever have thought of Barack Obama making a statement that he was going to send missiles into any country, much less Syria? Then we have to ask why has he gone from a roaring lion to a paper tiger? Obama was going to attack first and ask questions later, he was drawing the line in the sand, yet when time came and that line was allegedly crossed, like a school yard bully, he says “That was the world’s red line, I never did that!” Now that we have seen the United States snickered at and in some places laughed at like the Rodeo Clown Obama and his friends demeaned, we see a man that is lost and has no way out. Just what does Russia think of him? They laugh as if Obama is the clown, and he is not in any sort of rodeo! Should anyone wonder just what some, if not all the people of Russia and maybe the world, think of Obama right now? All we have to do is look at recent articles about Obama in the Pravda paper, which is a Russian publication.

The following commentary comes from just one of many articles popping up all over Russia and the world especially after Obama drew the “red line,” then another and then another! The following words are from Xavier Lerma:

Even though the US thinks they are in charge of humanity the reality is they are not. In their imaginary world the toothless media supports their spit ball shooting president. They actually think their words are supreme and final. Kerry and McCain keep dancing in a parade trying to influence a congress which is neither conservative nor moral but nevertheless war weary. The once drug addict now US leader cannot fight against Vladimir Putin who brought Russia from poverty in the 90’s to a more stable economy today. Obama’s buffoonery selling the war against Syria has hit a wall thanks to President Putin’s firm stance and leadership.

Focusing on war instead of a trillion dollar debt, Obama’s forte is to spread chaos not only in America but in the world. Like a fire bug his wake has left North Africa burning and he now supports terrorists the US once fought against. Bush once said that when Obama got into office that Barry would have to do the same and continue fighting in the Middle East. “Mr. I’ll bring home the troops next summer” has broken that promise and kept his “YES WE CAN start more wars” pledge. As they say in America, “he’s Bush on steroids”.

With just these words, the United States looks like a 3rd world nation rather than a leading nation. But this is just what the Marxist Obama wanted as he laid claim to being a staunch Marxist while he sat below the huge painting of Karl Marx and not just studied Karl Marx, but also wished he could direct a nation into oblivion like Karl Marx did! Yes Obama did say that many times while at Occidental College in California! Now he sits down when Putin talks and he listens like a good little school boy should, but why not, after all this is just what he had hoped for while studying Marxism in California! Now let us continue on with this article and see just what Obama is thought of outside of our nation where he should be respected!

“Although US public opinion is against another war the Bush haters will not protest Obama’s wars. I guess their feet hurt or Soros ran out of money. Code Pink went home to bake cookies or those in charge feel nothing can stop them now. Well, Putin is still in charge of the Middle East. The blood thirsty west can only grind its teeth, wail and scream, writhe in agony, spitting out lies, threats and accusations against Russia. Like Hitler and Napoleon, they will also meet their end.

 Russia, who has slain its Red Dragon (Communism) long ago, is now facing Puff the Magic Dragon. Blowing smoke in his people’s eyes and spreading democracy with bombs. Magic that cannot fight against the truth. Puff must face reality and will try to save face. He will blame the Republicans who stand in his way and his worshipers will pity and love him. Playing the race card once again will bring more power to his throne.

 The Saudi King whom Obama bowed to and Bush kissed will try again and again. Demanding Obama attack Syria. Trying to bribe Putin or threatening Russia with terrorists. He cannot let Russia, the largest country and the number one oil and gas producer, stand in their way. They want the world coming to them for oil and they know Russia will become more powerful in the future supplying Europe, China and other major countries. The Saudis must have complete control of the Middle East now before it’s too late.”

 Mr. Lerma shows the discontent with Obama and just how people in other parts of the world see him. Obama is now showing himself to be such a weak President that few nations will even help him go into any sort of war! Many would bash and cut to pieces President Bush for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when he mentioned it he had the backing of over 21 different nations that not only supported him, but were willing to send troops also. Obama, on the other hand, is lucky if he can gather together people from his home nation of Kenya, much less any amount of other nations.

Is it not strange that Obama has come out throwing punches like a drunken fighter, only to be knocked out before making center ring by Putin? Some say this is Obama’s master plan; to diminish the United States standing since he has always harbored a hate for our nation due to the actions across the globe. We do not know that to be a fact. However, one does have to wonder why did he even take up any ideas on Syria without first finding out who would support those ideas?

We should pay attention to what the world sees and writes which our own so-called newspapers seem to refuse to write. Mr. Lerma gives us insight into what some in Russia think of not just Obama, but some of the conservatives too, since it seems that some of those conservatives have in some cases seem to have crossed the line and followed behind Obama rather than lead from in front of him, men like the Speaker of the House John Boehner, who at times cries like a baby. What have we as a people done to allow a man who cries like a baby be a leader? However, we cannot just stop here, let us call into play the Vietnam Veteran Senator John McCain, who seems willing to jump the fence like a lost sheep. With leaders like these, we have become our own enemy! Let us not get caught up with these and let us get back to what is written about Obama in Russia.

Lerma continues:

 “Conservative Americans and those in the world are seeing Barry falling apart at the seams when he goes against Putin. They see a weak- kneed, lying, war mongering punk against a well-educated, confident and successful leader.  President Putin can stand alone and speak without a teleprompter or notes and argue reasonably. He can give interviews anytime without worry because he does not have to try to remember a lie or wonder what to say. He only has to gives facts which are easy to remember.  His conservative economics and religious views are admirable in their eyes.

Forgotten or ignored by the west are the Christian men and women of Russia who prayed, suffered and died for today’s free and united Russia. Last century they were attacked by Hell itself yet they endured and rebuilt Christ’s Church. Over 58 Million were killed in Communist Russia but the Faith survived. It is one of the greatest miracles in world history. The western media prefers to shriek like spoiled brats against Putin.  “Evil dictator!” they shout, while they themselves have rejected the Holy Spirit and proudly wear the seal of the Antichrist. They laugh but God is not mocked. Christ is Victorious in Russia where homosexuality is still a sin; blasphemy a crime; where crosses and holy images are in public view. A renewed faith in Christ our King has become our fortress. This is the wall Putin stands on and the wall that will cause Obama’s fall.”

Here, we see just what is written about Barack Obama in the Russian paper, Pravda, yet should we take this with a grain of salt? We should read this as a lesson learned, we should never vote another person into the office of President who only has experience as a “community organizer” because a local community is much smaller and different than a world of people. We should also make a note that in this article, Lerma openly called Obama a “liar,” something we have openly referred to Obama as, yet few seem to have noticed. Perhaps now that another country is making this statement, someone may well take heed and check out just what has he lied about.

We wouldn’t have to look hard to find out what Obama has lied about. Just one year ago, Obama was the biggest liar when it came to the terrorist attack in Benghazi! He could also be called a weak kneed man because he had many chances to capture at least one of those who killed the 4 men in Benghazi, yet Obama could not find them. Meanwhile, the very same press that loves Obama could not just find the first suspect charged in the Benghazi attacks, but they had interviews with him! We may not like the words Mr. Xavier Lerma writes, but we should ask if maybe the so-called news writers in our nation could be as bold? Maybe if the American reporters would be as bold as Mr. Lerma, our nation would not be the laughing stock of the world! Maybe the Rodeo Clown knew just what he was doing when he wore a mask of Obama!

Sponsored From Around the Web New Rule in California:(SEP 2013): If You Pay For Car Insurance You Better Read This… The End of Obama?Looming scandal could ruin the 44th President and disrupt our country. Shocking Survival TrickYour family is in danger. Learn the 7 secrets before it’s too late! #1 WORST food for weight gainStop eating it or you will GAIN fat (and discover 4 fat-burning foods) The E-Cigarette EXPOSEDDo not buy until you read this new study on the resultsLeon Puissegur is a Disabled Vietnam Veteran with 3 children and 9 grandchildren. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for 43 years. He is an award winning author and has been writing opinion pieces over the years and in just the last few years has written 4 books and a large amount of articles on many sites. You can purchase his books at LeonsBooks.com. Pick up his latest “The Oil Man” at his site.

About Leon Puissegur.

Leon Puissegur is a Disabled Vietnam Veteran with 3 children and 9 grandchildren. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for 43 years. He is an award winning author and has been writing opinion pieces over the years and in just the last few years has written 4 books and a large amount of articles on many sites. You can purchase his books at LeonsBooks.com. Pick up his latest “The Oil Man” at his site. View all posts by Leon Puissegur

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: