Previous post
We were so bombarded with the “Russian Collusion” lie and “Orange Man Bad” screeching for five years and the utter, incomprehensible mismanagement by the Biden Administration that it has been hard to keep up with the global plot. But, nearly a week in to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been time to read history and take a deep breath. The entire media has been reading from the same script. That has caused me to have some subversive thoughts.
First of all, my heart breaks for Ukraine. President Zelensky, the Ukraine military and the people of Ukraine are inspirational. I got no beef with the people of Russian. The average Ukrainians and Russians are all a bunch of poor putzes like the average American. We are all just trying to keep on keeping on in a world that doesn’t always make sense.
I started having subversive thoughts about this horrific invasion because the narrative was written so quickly. Those on the right, who were never fans of Putin, were denounced for being pro-Putin. Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and Charlie Hurt were accused by numerous media outlets for not mouthing the correct words. None of those men hung out in Delaware and ate ice cream while Russia amassed troops on the Ukraine border since last March.
More subversive thoughts came when Hildebeest Clinton, the congenital liar, took President Trump’s words out of context in an interview with Mika:
We have to make sure that within our own country, we are calling out people giving aid and comfort to Putin and siding with autocrats against the global cause of democracy. pic.twitter.com/6R11vmtkKP
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 28, 2022
The very same Hildebeest who “reset” the relationship with Russia after Russia invaded Georgia. The same one who gave Russia a financial interest in U.S. uranium. The same one who took buckets of cash from Russia for the Clinton Foundation and who paid for the lies of the Steele Dossier. She needs to shut her pie hole.
Ukraine began its march towards this day in 1994. Ukraine agreed to give up her nuclear weapons with the understanding that the United States, Northern Ireland, Great Britain and Russia would respect her borders. That didn’t work out so well. Russia took Crimea and other small regions of Ukraine. Also during the Obama/Biden years, Ukraine’s Burisma began paying for the dodgy services of Hunter Biden. Let us not forget how Biden bragged about threatening Ukraine. Ukraine had to fire the prosecutor looking into corruption involving Burisma and Hunter or else no aid bucks:
Ukraine got in deep with the Democrats and even helped push the Steele Dossier lies. In a great piece for Tablet, Lee Smith goes into great detail about “Ukraine’s Deadly Gamble”. Here are the last three, summary paragraphs from the article:
In order to cover up for what the Bidens and perhaps other senior Obama officials had done in Ukraine, a Democratic Congress impeached Trump for trying to figure out what American policymakers had been doing in Ukraine over the past decade. As for the Ukrainians, they again put themselves in the middle of it, when they should have stayed home.
The end result was that the Ukrainians had helped weaken an American president who, unlike Obama, gave them arms to defend themselves against the Russians. More seriously, they reinforced Putin’s view that, especially in partnership with the Democrats, Ukraine did not understand its true place in the world as a buffer state—and would continue to allow themselves to be used as an instrument by policymakers whose combination of narcissism and fecklessness made them particularly prone to dangerous miscalculations. The 2020 election victory of Joe Biden, a man whose family had been paid by the Ukrainians to protect them, can have done little to quiet Putin’s sense that Ukraine needed to be put in its place before it was used yet again as a weapon against him.
From the perspective of the U.S. national security establishment, Biden’s victory over Trump signaled that its actions in Ukraine would stay hidden. So long as the media continued to bark that the 45th president of the United States is Putin’s stooge, no one would be held accountable for anything. Except, as it turns out, D.C. political operatives aren’t the only people who can make history. Putin can, too. And the people of Ukraine will come out much the worse for both of their efforts.
It all stinks to high Heaven. That’s why being subversive isn’t a bad thing. Follow the money and don’t trust the “ruling” elites. Especially when they are all singing from the same hymnal.
The awesome Victor Davis Hanson makes similar points in his article for American Greatness “The Crowded Road to Kyiv”. His conclusions about the “narrative”:
Now we hear that midterm Biden has played the crisis wonderfully. The surreal progressive take on this crisis is that Winston Biden has corn-popped the “killer” Putin, metaphorically taken “the bully” behind the proverbial gym and given him a whomping, slammed his head on the global lunch counter, and in Biden’s deterrent fashion, called him a chump, one of the dregs, a junkie, fat, and a lying dog-faced pony soldier—and capped it all off with “You ain’t white!”
Joe threatened the toughest sanctions in history that on Wednesday would deter an invasion and by Saturday were never meant to at all. But Biden promises someday a “conversation” to decide whether at some time he still will issue the toughest sanctions in history. Until then, he invites Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy safe passage out of Kyiv—the quickest way to destroy the dogged Ukrainian resistance.
Left unsaid are the years of rapacious Biden family profiteering in Ukraine, a decade of leftist passive-aggressive love and hate of Russia, from obsequious reset to greedy Uranium One to pathetic “tell Vladimir . . .” to unhinged vetoing of sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
You know, the moronic Biden people offering evacuation to Zelensky never made sense to me. The fastest way to crush Ukraine would be to evac the leader.
That’s why I have subversive thoughts. I am going to continue to question everything about this. God bless the Ukraine and Russian people.
Perhaps you have a few subversive thoughts of your own.
Featured Image: VasenkaPhotography/Flickr.com/Cropped/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)
Lloyd says: Hillary Clinton is a national disgrace. She cares for nothing but herself. Unfortunately, many Americans worship her and accept anything that she says/does. I think she should just dry up and disappear!
AF JAG retired says: Sorry, but this “subversive” approach is nothing more than blaming the victim. The full-scale military invasion of an established, sovereign state that Russia had long recognized is a criminal violation of the most basic norms of international law. They adopted bad policies in the past? That’s no more relevant than whether a rape victim was wearing a short skirt. Victims of crime do not have to be immaculate virgins. In 1939, Poland was a military dictatorship, not a democracy, yet Britain and France were right to declare war on Nazi Germany when it invaded that country.
Toni Williams says: I think you mistook my meaning. I do not blame the Ukrainian people. I blame previous administrations of our own government. I blame all the corruptocrats.
TW
Gene says: TW: Your meaning was quite clear to people conversant with the English language and right on point. Please keep up the good work.
GWB says: a criminal violation of the most basic norms of international law
Mostly progressive twaddle, in violation of the reality of human nature and the conduct of nations.
And you’re doing the progressive thing by calling Ukraine a “victim”, too. They aren’t some girl on a street corner being violated by the local gang. They are a fully grown nation, responsible for their own conduct in the world and for their own defense. They tried and failed* to make alliances that would actually protect themselves, and they have relied on others as the source for their weapons (as so many do). I’m not saying they deserve what they get, just that this was a likely result of choices made and the harsh realities of international relations.
(* They failed because they didn’t get the US to actually make our stated obligation – to protect their boundaries if they gave their nukes back to Russia – a treaty one. If we had done so, there would be more political push to act within our own country. But the politicians didn’t expressly for that reason – future disavowal. It’s our fault for making promises we weren’t going to keep [because it kicked the current problems further down the road]. But they, as the great philosopher Otter said, “You f*ed up; you trusted us.”)
Olga says: I am sorry but these subversive thought repeat putin’s own justification for invading Ukraine. The original article repeats what putin said himself on a live russian state tv almost verbatim. And the author has been a well known repeated pro-putin writer. I guess he thought only English-speaking Americans would read his so-called analysis. You are the 3rd conservative-leaning person that I have to point this author’s pro-putin activities. Repeating them and asking to accept them as some sort of thoughtful intelligence is giving legitimacy to putin view that Ukraine can never be its own state but a submissive russian satellite
GWB says: Did you even read this post? There’s nowhere in there justification for Russia invading Ukraine. There’s reasons to not be entirely sympathetic to Ukraine, however.
I assume you’re talking about the Tablet article Toni quotes. Looking at the 3 paragraphs she does quote, I don’t see anywhere in there where it justifies Putin’s actions or opinions. It talks about them, so people can understand his reasoning. That’s actually a pretty important thing for folks who make decisions on foreign policy and, in America, for those who elect them. To not talk about those things would be propaganda, and a great many of us dislike that strongly.
olga says: oh yes, I did.
if you open the article you would see that these words ARE NOT ATTRIBUTED to putin, they are presented as the author’s own opinion. 99% verbatim of the putin’s own words. Again, these words were said at the infamous defense committee meeting widely broadcast by the russian state tv channels. Again, I heard them myself when it was streaming live by the russian state tv channel.
also, the tablet author has been known for his pro-putin articles for the last 14 years, yes, starting with the putin’s war in the Republic of Georgia.
Americans need to be aware how many English-speaking Western writers are paid to promote putin’s point of view in the West. Google russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, very enlightening and clearly indicates a number of Western English-speaking writers paid handsomely for writing such drivel.
Like I said, Ms. Williams is not the only conservative-leaning individual that I had to inform about the compromised source used for her own writing.
GWB says: OK, I’ve now read the article in question. The whooooole thing.
And you’re wrong. Perhaps you’re a Ukrainian propagandist. Perhaps you’re a naive European. Perhaps you’re a Soros troll. Perhaps you’re a Progressive true believer wanting to help Biden win. Perhaps you’re just someone who’s read too many CNN pieces and can no longer distinguish reality from fiction.
But you’re absolutely, 100% wrong about the Tablet piece. It’s factual, lays out all of the damning evidence, and keeps rah-rahing to a minimum.
Maybe the author has written other articles that were pro-Putin. But this one comports with the facts as I know them to be, not merely hope to be.
Olga says: Resorting to ad hominem attack is the sign of no valid counter argument.
May be you need to ask someone with the DLI certificate in russian to translate putin’s statements available on the russian state tv website. Then you can compare them against the “factual” tablet article.
GWB says: LOL! Why would I rely on DLI grads when I know someone who graduated with a minor in Russian and worked in intel?
Also, who cares if Putin said those things? If they’re true, they’re true.
And I know many of those things are true by first-hand observation.
I’m suspicious of the timing. Just like the BLM crisis before the 2020 election, I think this was pre-prepared.
John in Indy says: My suspicion is that as the Biden Residency began to see their corruption, particularly in Ukraine, coming into the light, they decided to throw the Ukraine and its people under the bus by baiting Putin into some action that could be used to change the narrative there, and protect the Obama / Biden actions and payoffs.
Typically, the Biden Residency believed their press releases, and that they were the smartest people evah, and that a war in Europe would be a good thing to use to cover their enormous failures and many evil decisions regarding the Covid panic.
Putin didn’t trust them, and went off the rails in his own mad way, though there may yet prove to be method in his madness in the way his forces seem to be conducting this war.
I say seem to be, as I trust NONE of the reports coming out of the Ukraine.
As usual, it will be the ordinary Ukranians who will suffer the consequences of nation state politics, and the kleptocrats who will take their plunder to safe havens.
John in Indy
GWB says: I think you’re in violation of Occam’s Razor here. And I don’t think even Biden’s handlers would view “war in Europe” as something desirable for a distraction. Maybe if they view Ukraine as sufficiently non-European (like they seem to do with the Balkan states).
I think Biden’s team would have an easier time provoking something in the Middle East or Africa that wouldn’t involve risk of nuclear war.
The simplest answer is Biden’s weakness emboldened Putin, who has wanted to re-absorb Ukraine for a decade at least.
Toni Williams says: Thank you GWB. I think Putin was looking for an opportunity for a while. He had this in the works when he saw the disastrous Afghan withdrawal. He took the opportunity.
BTW, not only is my son a Major, my brother’s oldest is a Sergeant/Convoy Scout and his middle boy is an Airborne Combat Medic. I don’t know where any of them are and even if I did, opsec.
GWB says: He’s been itching to take Ukraine since he took the Crimea in 2014… when Biden was VP.
Milwaukee says: The propaganda machines are running on high. One hint… George Soros has stated the U.S. needs to support the Ukraine. A Ukrainian member of parliament said they were fighting for the Ukraine and the new world order. I’m not sure I want to support the new world order.
olga says: I am afraid your definition of the new world order is not what a Ukrainian member of Rada meant. Most normal people in Eastern Europe are not into conspiracy theories. New world order for Ukrainians is where putin is no longer invades Ukraine, putin is no longer in power in Russia, and Ukraine is a EU and NATO member.
George says: I love how Northern Ireland get credit for giving assurances to the Ukraine.
GWB says: Subversive thoughts:
It really shouldn’t be any of our business. This entanglement of alliances is why WW1 got started so easily.
I do like the Ukrainian attitude. I’ve studied Cossacks a little (as well as their predecessors). Unfortunately, they’re much like the Scots – fabulously independent and freedom-minded, but they can’t seem to get their stuff all in one sack and band together for very long without stabbing one another in the back.
That attitude is one of the difficulties of maintaining a proper distance from the rest of the world. We Americans see what seems to be a plucky underdog fighting against the bully on the block and we want to step in. AND we have the ability to step in. But, unlike a schoolyard scrap or a mugger on a corner, we’re actually putting all of America’s blood and treasure on the line when we step in to someone else’s fight. We should be very cautious of that, and we should enforce our Constitutional limits on making war very closely.
I do like the idea of a Lafayette Escadrille or Flying Tigers for the Ukrainians. I’ve been tempted to go, myself. Unfortunately, the new world order has banned private armies, ensuring that only entire nation states, for the most part, can put their blood and treasure on the line. This is by design, and has very little to do with actually stopping real wars. And it increases the likelihood of bigger wars.
I am going to state that I think Russia’s nuclear deterrent isn’t what it was, and it wasn’t all that great to start with. Putin’s saber-rattling here is exploiting the western cold war idea of Russia brimming with operational nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs. We really should push just enough to make sure that becomes evident to the world without actually prompting nukes to fly.
Olga says: 1. Sitting out does not work. Did not work in WWI, did not work in WWII, did not work here either, as putin is holding his bloody (literally and figuratively) finger over the red button AND as evidenced by the article used for this blog post, putin made America his interest.
2. Our response to this war is a warning off to China off Taiwan.
2. Sometimes a mere appearance of the willingness to step in to fight stops the bully
3. putin’s condition for withdrawl was placing NATO borders to 1997 which means Poland and the Baltics are no longer NATO members.
4. I guess you really want the Cold War back??
GWB says: 1. Bullcarp. You’re mind is poisoned by progressivism. (Given that you sound like a European, that’s even less surprising than for an American.) Having a bad actor out there jumping up and down and threatening you is not adequate casus belli, especially for America. (And if you think he’s going to launch nukes at us, what do you think has prevented him before now? MAD still works.) Also, sitting out works perfectly well for us. It doesn’t harm our interests much at all, if you define “our interests” properly (e.g., NOT including “world peace” or “safe for democracy” or other malarkey).
2. Sorry, but we’ve already screwed that up. We’ll be lucky if China doesn’t decide now is the time to take Taiwan. (And, for their sake, I really hope we’re lucky.)
2 (again?). So what? It’s not our job. Let me put it in really big letters for you: IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO SAVE THE WORLD AT OUR EXPENSE. And the bully example is an example of the progressive poison – foreign policy is NOT a playground with bullies and ‘innocent’ kids. It’s a world of grownup countries that all have their own responsibility to protect their borders and defend their people. It’s their job, not ours.
3. Putin can go screw his horse. NATO is what it is at this point. I do NOT, however, think NATO should have been expanded. We should have built an entirely new security apparatus that helped Europe defend itself, from Ukraine all the way to Portugal, from Finland to Italy. Once the Cold War ended, it was time to stop being western Europe’s guarantor and to help eastern Europe stand on its own and not be dependent on others (which can get you royally screwed in the end).
4. Honey, I helped WIN the Cold War. I was actually sitting alert the day Bush stood us down. And I and my crew went immediately to a higher level of alert which our previous alert had invisibly supported. I pulled those alert shifts for another 3 years until I was medically disqualified.
But, understand this: war never went away. And we can’t make it go away. Period. And our position as the United States of America should NOT be one of trying to make that happen.
Foreign policy should not be based on emotion or “morality” in the manner progressivism pushes it. It should be based on fact and self-interest. It should not be based on utopianism (again, progressivism) but on human nature and the nature of nations as they are in the here and now.
Olga says: Again, ad hominem attacks, tsk-tsk-tsk.
Where are your unemotional factual counter arguments??
Have you heard putin say “…why do we need the world without russia??” You can engage the DLI russian language graduate to translate these words to you.
I wonder what would have Reagan said about your anti-morality statement. His foreign policy was based on the same morality you so despise.
GWB says: I gave you all the unemotional counter-arguments.
You’ve proven yourself to not be an honest debater, so I don’t really care about your opinion of my ad hominem attacks. (BTW, those statements were not really ad hominem; they were rhetorical statements of all the possible reasons you could be arguing in bad faith.)
And Reagan was not a god to me. He was more right than most and I dearly loved him as President. But I do not agree that he relied upon the moral arguments I’m speaking of to justify military actions, except possibly peacekeeping forces.
Toni Williams says: It takes a lot of work and money to keep nuclear stockpiles up to snuff. I live near Oak Ridge and my late, beloved father in law was the production manager for the Y-12 nuclear facility for 30 years. They spent a lot of time keeping the stockpile ready.
[…] with that. Third, as the U.S. and NATO start discussing and planning for additional ways to assist Ukraine, the Kremlin is now very […]
william c deangelo says: if you don’t think this admin is trying to disarm Americans, ask the Ukrainian soldier who called all of us “lying sacks of s##t” for promises of protection if they turned in the nukes.
[…] battles are an every day occurrence. Now we are in the grinding phase of the war. , I have had subversive thoughts about the Ukraine war from the very beginning. It was just too convenient. No more war in […]
28 Comments