The First GOP Debate and The Elephant Not In The Room
On Wednesday night, Fox News and the streaming platform Rumble hosted the first Republican presidential debate with the eight GOP hopefuls who made the cut: North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, former governor of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, former governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, former vice president Mike Pence, biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Barri: as a Jewish woman, does the term “America First,” especially in reference to refusing aid to Ukraine, not being back memories of people following the same slogan in 1939? Are we surprised that Europeans continue to distrust our commitment to their security?
I fear that the neocon position of endless war until Ukraine reclaims all its territory will result in the first Great War of the 21st Century.
A soldier who earned his Combat Infantryman's badge in Vietnam once told me that it doesn't matter how much you pound a hill with artillery, or how many bombs you drop on it, it's not your hill until one of your grunts is on top of it. I don't think Ukraine has enough grunts to take back the territory Russia has conquered, no matter how many tens of billions of dollars in hardware we send their way. The stalled counteroffensive supports my position.
If a fully intact Ukraine is the only acceptable outcome to this war, and Ukraine doesn't have the capability to push Russia out, we're going to have to supply the grunts. It's that simple.
Ukraine is not worth that level of commitment and sacrifice. Obama said it himself: "Ukraine will always matter to Russia more than it will to us."
The Neocon's frame of reference for Ukraine is Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938. This was overt aggression under the guise of protecting ethnic Germans; Hitler took the opportunity to grab some additional territory. Putin's war is very similar-invading Ukraine under the guise of protecting ethnic Russians from Ukrainian depredations. In this scenario, Putin's motivations are imperial, and there is risk of him continuing West.
Another frame of reference to consider is the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when Kennedy risked nuclear war to have Russia remove its missiles from the island nation ninety miles off the US coast.
Looked at through this perspective, Putin is reprising the role of Kennedy. The triggering act that caused Putin to set his two hairs on fire was Blinken's announcement that Ukraine was going to join NATO. Ukraine in NATO is a greater threat to Russia than missiles in Cuba were to the US-an analogous situation would be Canada joining the Warsaw pact in the 1970's.
I'm not justifying Putin's actions at all. My frustration is that our leaders in Washington are as insular internationally as they are domestically. They don't try to understand Trump supporters, writing them off as racist uneducated hick insurrectionists; they don't consider that it would be rational in Putin's worldview to start a war rather than share a thousand mile border with NATO.
The Neocon view may be right, but it requires continuing escalations until Putin is finally thrown out of Ukraine, or until Ukraine collapses (which is more likely in my opinion.)
The Realpolitik worldview acknowledges Putin's fears and would explore a negotiated settlement. Ukraine would undoubtedly lose territory and would have to promise not to join NATO.
Those are the options I see-a decade long simmering proxy war that could explode into a full blown conflagration for any one of a hundred reasons at anytime; or a shrunken, neutered Ukraine.
Ukraine is in a lose-lose situation. We need to recognize that fact as well.
Batya Ungar-Sargon is the cure for Trump Derangement Syndrome. She beautifully articulates why half of the country loves Trump’s policies. She disarms the liberal PR machine that attempts to brand every right-leading voter.
Yet again, three liberals talking about what conservatives think without knowing anything about what conservatives think. Get some conservatives on these panels.
Barri: as a Jewish woman, does the term “America First,” especially in reference to refusing aid to Ukraine, not being back memories of people following the same slogan in 1939? Are we surprised that Europeans continue to distrust our commitment to their security?
I fear that the neocon position of endless war until Ukraine reclaims all its territory will result in the first Great War of the 21st Century.
A soldier who earned his Combat Infantryman's badge in Vietnam once told me that it doesn't matter how much you pound a hill with artillery, or how many bombs you drop on it, it's not your hill until one of your grunts is on top of it. I don't think Ukraine has enough grunts to take back the territory Russia has conquered, no matter how many tens of billions of dollars in hardware we send their way. The stalled counteroffensive supports my position.
If a fully intact Ukraine is the only acceptable outcome to this war, and Ukraine doesn't have the capability to push Russia out, we're going to have to supply the grunts. It's that simple.
Ukraine is not worth that level of commitment and sacrifice. Obama said it himself: "Ukraine will always matter to Russia more than it will to us."
The Neocon's frame of reference for Ukraine is Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938. This was overt aggression under the guise of protecting ethnic Germans; Hitler took the opportunity to grab some additional territory. Putin's war is very similar-invading Ukraine under the guise of protecting ethnic Russians from Ukrainian depredations. In this scenario, Putin's motivations are imperial, and there is risk of him continuing West.
Another frame of reference to consider is the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when Kennedy risked nuclear war to have Russia remove its missiles from the island nation ninety miles off the US coast.
Looked at through this perspective, Putin is reprising the role of Kennedy. The triggering act that caused Putin to set his two hairs on fire was Blinken's announcement that Ukraine was going to join NATO. Ukraine in NATO is a greater threat to Russia than missiles in Cuba were to the US-an analogous situation would be Canada joining the Warsaw pact in the 1970's.
I'm not justifying Putin's actions at all. My frustration is that our leaders in Washington are as insular internationally as they are domestically. They don't try to understand Trump supporters, writing them off as racist uneducated hick insurrectionists; they don't consider that it would be rational in Putin's worldview to start a war rather than share a thousand mile border with NATO.
The Neocon view may be right, but it requires continuing escalations until Putin is finally thrown out of Ukraine, or until Ukraine collapses (which is more likely in my opinion.)
The Realpolitik worldview acknowledges Putin's fears and would explore a negotiated settlement. Ukraine would undoubtedly lose territory and would have to promise not to join NATO.
Those are the options I see-a decade long simmering proxy war that could explode into a full blown conflagration for any one of a hundred reasons at anytime; or a shrunken, neutered Ukraine.
Ukraine is in a lose-lose situation. We need to recognize that fact as well.
Please see Lee Fang’s report on Nikki Haley’s sources of sudden wealth:
https://open.substack.com/pub/leefang/p/nikki-haleys-sudden-wealth-rooted?r=gb5gl&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Batya Ungar-Sargon is the cure for Trump Derangement Syndrome. She beautifully articulates why half of the country loves Trump’s policies. She disarms the liberal PR machine that attempts to brand every right-leading voter.
Yet again, three liberals talking about what conservatives think without knowing anything about what conservatives think. Get some conservatives on these panels.