During the Cold War American conservatives were ridiculed for the "Domino Theory" of the sequential advance of the USSR, which posited that if we didn't stop the commies in Vietnam we would be fighting them eventually at the Rio Grande. Now it is American liberals who preach the new domino theory, which warns that if we don't stop the Russians in Ukraine next will fall Georgia, then the Baltics.....
Ukraine is beginning to face recruiting challenges for its military and fissures are appearing in Ukrainian society over issues of who should serve. Many are exempted from duty because they own/operate/work in businesses that, while not defense-related, are deemed economically-important to generate needed tax revenue. Some pay bribes to avoid conscription. Many Ukrainian service age men have fled the country to avoid service. The courageous Ukrainian volunteers that have been beating back the Russians are weary and their families growing disgruntled seeing young men in Kiev in the coffee shops instead of the trenches. What happens if this grows into popular ambivalence? It is merely an assumption that Ukrainians themselves will continue to support this war indefinitely.
When hundreds of billions in assistance pours into any nation corruption inevitably follows. It happened in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Ukraine may be involved in a noble existential struggle; however, prewar Ukraine was also a notoriously corrupt country and it would be naive to imagine no diversion of aid enriching the corrupt and contributing to the expansion of criminal infrastructure. Such corruption will significantly handicap a post-war Ukraine and be difficult to prevent.
An unintended consequence of our military support of Ukraine has been the substantial improvement in Russia's military abilities. Deployment of advanced western weapons systems has given Russian (and vicariously the Chinese) military a laboratory to study the capability and function of these systems and improvise countermeasures to thwart them. The Russians are learning and adapting. Starlink is a recent example. The Russian army that bumbled toward Kiev two years ago is not the same army today. They are much more capable now because we have been schooling them. They have had opportunities to improve logistics. Their factories are churning out brand-new armaments at an alarming rate. They have recruited new supply chains and successfully incorporated foreign weapons systems from Iran and Korea. Counterintuitively, it may have been ultimately safer for NATO countries if the West had allowed Russian to remain complacent about its over-rated military capability instead of incentivizing its improvement. Arguably, today's Russia is a more formidable adversary than it was two years ago precisely because of our assistance to Ukraine.
I agree with Bret Stephens. Tucker Carlson is the failed star of the click baiters. What he knows and means nobody knows or really cares. He's just one of us.
Have you noticed how the warmongers always try to sell victory, in the form of a new “wonder weapon”, like the drones, and hypersonic missiles. Meanwhile, 70 percent of casualties are caused by minefields and old fashioned long range Howitzers.
Insipid. Bret calls names and Bridge taunts that more people agree with him so he must be right. They try to score points by calling up the aid package that was such a Frankenstein monster of interests that a vote for or against signals nothing about the Senators' leanings. The debate should have been, on one side, the advantages and costs of supporting UKR and, on the other, the advantages and costs of not supporting UKR and living with a victorious Russia. No wonder people tune out from the foreign policy-types. Listen to them and one realizes that they know the names of the capitals and the leaders, but they have no idea what the game is.
This Bret guy has a real chip on the shoulder about conservatives , and seems to really hate them. Bret always seems to go back to his hates and seems to loose track of the questions . I guess Bret is a looser of the debate because of this mostly , and the fact that the US should be the police man of the world , for all the world ?
Listening to Bret frustrated me. Once again we listen to a democrat go on a rampage about how stupid "MAGA" voters are and how awful Tucker Carlson is. They just can't help themselves. We don't even know where the money we send to UKRAINE is going. Soldiers in Ukraine have admitted that the billions we have sent are not showing up on the battlefield. So, Ukraine continues to be obliterated and Blackrock is standing at the door with glee to receive millions of dollars to go in and rebuild. It is a mess and I stand with Bridge. Secure OUR border before shoveling trillions of cash to Ukraine.
Very disappointing podcast. Both speakers made their points in the first twenty minutes. Their points were as expected, nothing really surprising. Then Bari asked two important questions. The fist is why the peace treaty was not accepted and the second is why are so many Americans against supporting Ukraine.
Both speakers avoided answering the first question. One speaker briefly addressed the second. These were the most important questions of the discussion. It was very poor moderation by Bari. The fact that neither wanted to discuss this in detail tells you how important the questions are.
Did I hear this correctly from Bret Stevens—60 billion is 1% of America’s $6 trillion budget, so what’s the big deal? Ummm…
Why does Russia have to be our enemy? Sure, he’s a bad guy, but we have to be on good terms with lots of bad guys. Most of the world is led by bad guys, like the ones with oil.
Does the deep state need a boogy man, and Putin fits the bill?
Why does NATO have to keep expanding, when expanding is what causes war?
The problem with Tucker Carlson is that he is a smart, sharp individual, with a wide range view, but his antics, and his lack of seriousness, make him to be someone not to be taken seriously.
He is not William F. Buckley, they share similar characteristics, but Buckley was a serious person, and was taken seriously. He was thoughtful and engaged his guests on Firing Line.
He granted them the acknowledgement that they were intelligent and worthy opponents.
Tucker has the balls to speak up. There are zero journalists in MSM willing to that instead they all kiss the feet of the Biden administration. They are partisan hacks.
I have no problems with him interviewing Putin, in point of fact, thought it was a good idea on the whole. My problems are with the execution, for example, showing how much a basket of food, $104 in American money can buy, without any examples of what the average weekly income is in Moscow, distorts the scene and the information.
We must agree to disagree, found him thoughtful, not always to my way of thinking, but willing to engage those he disagreed with, and to do it with humor and courtesy, Gore Vidal, being the lone exception.
I quit reading when I hit “so that we don’t have to face this kind of confrontation ourselves in a few years”. We would never have to face it had we simply kept our word not to push NATO to Russia’s border (lands). Everything else is just a tiresome and limpid excuse for endless weapons spending and money laundering. People aren’t stupid and are seeing right through this 64 years and counting of unwarranted influence by the military industrial complex. We aren’t exactly beating our swords into plowshares but at least BlackRock will own the fertile soil our John Deere’s ride through in the Ukraine twilight
Great commentary and appreciate the views. What bothers me is that we are not planning on winning the war. Where are the F-16’s?? Why aren’t we giving the tools to Ukraine to win this war. Where is our Churchill? You are right that the current leadership has not built the case to support Ukraine.
If I had any form of cancer I would want to eliminate the threat. Asap
Russia has shown us that they are a 3rd world military. We went into the Middle East twice and totally destroyed our opponents. Russia cannot go into its backyard and defeat a neighbor. Give Ukraine what it needs to get the job done.
And the same goes for Taiwan and China and Israel versus Iran and Hamas and Yemen.
An absolutely brilliant debate and a heartening reminder of liberal process and principles. Thank you.
BS has TDS.
During the Cold War American conservatives were ridiculed for the "Domino Theory" of the sequential advance of the USSR, which posited that if we didn't stop the commies in Vietnam we would be fighting them eventually at the Rio Grande. Now it is American liberals who preach the new domino theory, which warns that if we don't stop the Russians in Ukraine next will fall Georgia, then the Baltics.....
Ukraine is beginning to face recruiting challenges for its military and fissures are appearing in Ukrainian society over issues of who should serve. Many are exempted from duty because they own/operate/work in businesses that, while not defense-related, are deemed economically-important to generate needed tax revenue. Some pay bribes to avoid conscription. Many Ukrainian service age men have fled the country to avoid service. The courageous Ukrainian volunteers that have been beating back the Russians are weary and their families growing disgruntled seeing young men in Kiev in the coffee shops instead of the trenches. What happens if this grows into popular ambivalence? It is merely an assumption that Ukrainians themselves will continue to support this war indefinitely.
When hundreds of billions in assistance pours into any nation corruption inevitably follows. It happened in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Ukraine may be involved in a noble existential struggle; however, prewar Ukraine was also a notoriously corrupt country and it would be naive to imagine no diversion of aid enriching the corrupt and contributing to the expansion of criminal infrastructure. Such corruption will significantly handicap a post-war Ukraine and be difficult to prevent.
An unintended consequence of our military support of Ukraine has been the substantial improvement in Russia's military abilities. Deployment of advanced western weapons systems has given Russian (and vicariously the Chinese) military a laboratory to study the capability and function of these systems and improvise countermeasures to thwart them. The Russians are learning and adapting. Starlink is a recent example. The Russian army that bumbled toward Kiev two years ago is not the same army today. They are much more capable now because we have been schooling them. They have had opportunities to improve logistics. Their factories are churning out brand-new armaments at an alarming rate. They have recruited new supply chains and successfully incorporated foreign weapons systems from Iran and Korea. Counterintuitively, it may have been ultimately safer for NATO countries if the West had allowed Russian to remain complacent about its over-rated military capability instead of incentivizing its improvement. Arguably, today's Russia is a more formidable adversary than it was two years ago precisely because of our assistance to Ukraine.
I agree with Bret Stephens. Tucker Carlson is the failed star of the click baiters. What he knows and means nobody knows or really cares. He's just one of us.
Have you noticed how the warmongers always try to sell victory, in the form of a new “wonder weapon”, like the drones, and hypersonic missiles. Meanwhile, 70 percent of casualties are caused by minefields and old fashioned long range Howitzers.
https://nationalpost.com/news/no-joke-ottawa-to-give-ukraine-4-million-to-fund-gender-inclusive-demining
No...the Ukraine war is being used by WEF lackeys to funnel cash. So many Spanish villas being bought by Ukrainian officials, military "leaders" etc.
Insipid. Bret calls names and Bridge taunts that more people agree with him so he must be right. They try to score points by calling up the aid package that was such a Frankenstein monster of interests that a vote for or against signals nothing about the Senators' leanings. The debate should have been, on one side, the advantages and costs of supporting UKR and, on the other, the advantages and costs of not supporting UKR and living with a victorious Russia. No wonder people tune out from the foreign policy-types. Listen to them and one realizes that they know the names of the capitals and the leaders, but they have no idea what the game is.
This Bret guy has a real chip on the shoulder about conservatives , and seems to really hate them. Bret always seems to go back to his hates and seems to loose track of the questions . I guess Bret is a looser of the debate because of this mostly , and the fact that the US should be the police man of the world , for all the world ?
Listening to Bret frustrated me. Once again we listen to a democrat go on a rampage about how stupid "MAGA" voters are and how awful Tucker Carlson is. They just can't help themselves. We don't even know where the money we send to UKRAINE is going. Soldiers in Ukraine have admitted that the billions we have sent are not showing up on the battlefield. So, Ukraine continues to be obliterated and Blackrock is standing at the door with glee to receive millions of dollars to go in and rebuild. It is a mess and I stand with Bridge. Secure OUR border before shoveling trillions of cash to Ukraine.
Very disappointing podcast. Both speakers made their points in the first twenty minutes. Their points were as expected, nothing really surprising. Then Bari asked two important questions. The fist is why the peace treaty was not accepted and the second is why are so many Americans against supporting Ukraine.
Both speakers avoided answering the first question. One speaker briefly addressed the second. These were the most important questions of the discussion. It was very poor moderation by Bari. The fact that neither wanted to discuss this in detail tells you how important the questions are.
Did I hear this correctly from Bret Stevens—60 billion is 1% of America’s $6 trillion budget, so what’s the big deal? Ummm…
Why does Russia have to be our enemy? Sure, he’s a bad guy, but we have to be on good terms with lots of bad guys. Most of the world is led by bad guys, like the ones with oil.
Does the deep state need a boogy man, and Putin fits the bill?
Why does NATO have to keep expanding, when expanding is what causes war?
The problem with Tucker Carlson is that he is a smart, sharp individual, with a wide range view, but his antics, and his lack of seriousness, make him to be someone not to be taken seriously.
He is not William F. Buckley, they share similar characteristics, but Buckley was a serious person, and was taken seriously. He was thoughtful and engaged his guests on Firing Line.
He granted them the acknowledgement that they were intelligent and worthy opponents.
Who is going to do that with Tucker.
Tucker has the balls to speak up. There are zero journalists in MSM willing to that instead they all kiss the feet of the Biden administration. They are partisan hacks.
I have no problems with him interviewing Putin, in point of fact, thought it was a good idea on the whole. My problems are with the execution, for example, showing how much a basket of food, $104 in American money can buy, without any examples of what the average weekly income is in Moscow, distorts the scene and the information.
Other than an annoying laugh, what antics do you mean? I watched WFB in the 60s and found him monumentally pompous.
We must agree to disagree, found him thoughtful, not always to my way of thinking, but willing to engage those he disagreed with, and to do it with humor and courtesy, Gore Vidal, being the lone exception.
Would be curious to know if Elbridge Colby is related to Bainbridge Colby who served as Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson?
Grandson of William Colby who was head of cia under Ford
Je suis d’accord!
I quit reading when I hit “so that we don’t have to face this kind of confrontation ourselves in a few years”. We would never have to face it had we simply kept our word not to push NATO to Russia’s border (lands). Everything else is just a tiresome and limpid excuse for endless weapons spending and money laundering. People aren’t stupid and are seeing right through this 64 years and counting of unwarranted influence by the military industrial complex. We aren’t exactly beating our swords into plowshares but at least BlackRock will own the fertile soil our John Deere’s ride through in the Ukraine twilight
Great commentary and appreciate the views. What bothers me is that we are not planning on winning the war. Where are the F-16’s?? Why aren’t we giving the tools to Ukraine to win this war. Where is our Churchill? You are right that the current leadership has not built the case to support Ukraine.
If I had any form of cancer I would want to eliminate the threat. Asap
Russia has shown us that they are a 3rd world military. We went into the Middle East twice and totally destroyed our opponents. Russia cannot go into its backyard and defeat a neighbor. Give Ukraine what it needs to get the job done.
And the same goes for Taiwan and China and Israel versus Iran and Hamas and Yemen.
Been fitted for your combat gear yet?