Didn't we once upon a time blame Germany's "blank check" to Austria for WW I? The trouble is that Putin is totally justified in putting a real threat threat to the security of his country - and to ethnic Russians living just beyond its western border - above the USA and West's hypocritical and sanctimonious obeisance to international law. That is what this war is about, no matter how much propaganda lipstick is smeared on this pig.
Yeah…: What could POSSIBLY go wrong? Remember: "“This is about supporting the Ukrainians, not fighting the Russians"... :
BIDEN ADMIN WANTS TO BOOST EFFORTS TO TRACK U.S. WEAPONS IN UKRAINE, MAY SEND ANOTHER HANDFUL OF TROOPS [Excerpts] by Courtney Kube and Carol E. Lee 121222
<<< Senior U.S. Officials Stressed That Any New U.S. Troop Presence In Ukraine Would Be Limited And Modest, Most Likely In The Single Digits. >>>
The Defense Department is working to shore up efforts to track weapons provided to Ukraine, according to three senior U.S. officials, including discussing whether to send a small number of additional U.S. troops to Ukraine.
The discussion comes as the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine approaches and the Biden administration contends with the ground war and a new political battlefield at home. The INCOMING REPUBLICAN HOUSE MAJORITY HAS SIGNALED IT WILL BE MORE SKEPTICAL OF A “BLANK CHECK” FOR UKRAINE AND WILL WANT MORE ACCOUNTABILITY ABOUT HOW U.S. WEAPONS ARE DISTRIBUTED AND USED. SOME GOP LAWMAKERS COULD TRY TO BLOCK ECONOMIC AND MILITARY AID — OR LIMIT U.S. TROOP PRESENCE.
The Pentagon has a couple of dozen U.S. troops in Ukraine, including a very small number already assigned to making sure weapons reach their intended recipients. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other military leaders want to enhance the accountability mission and make sure there are experts in country to help Ukraine use critical weapons systems, including air defense and counter-drone systems.
THE OFFICIALS SAID THEY WOULD LIKE TO PICK UP THE PACE OF THE WEAPONS CHECK BEFORE JANUARY, WHEN THERE WILL BE MORE PRESSURE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FROM HOUSE REPUBLICANS.
The senior U.S. officials stressed that any new troop presence would be limited and modest, most likely in the single digits. In addition to security concerns, they said, sustaining people in Kyiv remains challenging, with finite space and an unreliable supply of essentials like running water and electricity.
The State Department also caps how many U.S. government officials — civilian and military — can live and work in other countries, and that limit is low in Ukraine, officials say. Some could live and work in neighboring countries and travel in for missions if the cap is not raised, the officials said, but an increase could also spark criticism from Republicans and others that the Biden administration is pushing the limits of a pledge not to send U.S. troops to Ukraine.
“THIS IS CLASSIC MISSION CREEP,” a former U.S. official said.
“THAT’S RIDICULOUS,” A U.S. DEFENSE OFFICIAL SAID, EXPLAINING THAT IT IS AN “EXTREMELY LIMITED” ADDITIONAL PRESENCE WITH A “VERY SPECIFIC” MISSION. “THIS IS ABOUT SUPPORTING THE UKRAINIANS, NOT FIGHTING THE RUSSIANS.”
AMERICA'S WAR AGAINST EUROPE: What Was Uncle Sam Up To In Ukraine? by Noah Carl 120922
When it comes to explaining how we ended up with Russia launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and Europe proceeding to cut itself off from its main energy supplier, there are TWO MAIN CAMPS.
One camp says that PUTIN IS AN IMPERIALIST BENT ON RECREATING THE SOVIET UNION, WHO INVADED UKRAINE (A COUNTRY HE DOESN’T CONSIDER REAL) IN ORDER TO EXPAND RUSSIA’S TERRITORY AND POPULATION. According to this camp, there’s nothing the West could have done to prevent Putin’s invasion short of allowing Ukraine to become a hollowed-out vassal state, or arming Ukraine to the teeth in the faint hope of deterring Russian bellicosity.
The other camp says that PUTIN SAW US/NATO INVOLVEMENT IN UKRAINE AS A THREAT TO RUSSIAN INTERESTS (INCLUDING BOTH THE SECURITY OF RUSSIA ITSELF AND THE INTERESTS OF ETHNIC RUSSIANS IN THE DONBAS), AND HE INVADED THE COUNTRY AS A WAY TO NEUTRALISE THAT THREAT. According to this camp, the West could have prevented Putin’s invasion by enforcing an agreement along the lines of Minsk II, i.e., one that enshrined Ukrainian neutrality.
The key element here is US/NATO involvement, since without such involvement Kiev would never have risked provoking its larger and more powerful neighbour. Despite this, FEW IN THE SECOND CAMP TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY THE US/NATO GOT INVOLVED IN UKRAINE. Or if they do, they chalk up to “misguided policy” or “policy mistakes”; US officials were just too wedded to the principle that every state can choose its own alliances.
YET THERE’S AN ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITY: THE US GOT INVOLVED IN UKRAINE IN ORDER TO PROVOKE RUSSIA; IT TOOK THE VARIOUS ACTIONS THAT IT DID, STARTING IN 2008, WITH THE AIM OF INCITING CONFLICT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE (THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY ALL-OUT WAR).
WHY WOULD IT DO THIS? Two primary reasons. First, TO GET A GEOSTRATEGIC RIVAL BOGGED DOWN IN A COSTLY AND PROTRACTED CONFLICT, THEREBY DEGRADING ITS ECONOMY AND ARMED FORCES. Second, TO DRIVE A WEDGE BETWEEN EUROPE AND RUSSIA, THEREBY LIMITING FUTURE COOPERATION BETWEEN THEM AND CEMENTING THE POWER OF THE US-LED NATO ALLIANCE.
The first reason is self-explanatory – the US wants its rivals to be less powerful. But the second requires further elaboration. WHAT WOULD THE US HAVE TO GAIN BY DRIVING A WEDGE BETWEEN EUROPE AND RUSSIA? IN SHORT, REDUCED EUROPEAN STRATEGIC AUTONOMY AND INCREASED RELIANCE ON THE US.
MILITARY GROOMERS ARE INCREASINGLY INFILTRATING US HIGH SCHOOLS by Caitlin Johnstone 121222
*** Thousands of Teens Are Being Pushed Into Military’s Junior R.O.T.C. In high schools across the country, students are being placed in military classes without electing them on their own. “The only word I can think of is ‘indoctrination,’” one parent said. ***
Protect your kids.
A New York Times report [ https://archive.vn/bI1dJ#selection-289.0-293.186 ] has found that ENROLLMENT IN THE JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS’ TRAINING CORPS (JROTC), A PENTAGON-FUNDED PROGRAM DESIGNED TO GROOM CHILDREN FOR MILITARY SERVICE, IS INCREASINGLY BECOMING MANDATORY IN US HIGH SCHOOLS.
"J.R.O.T.C. programs, taught by military veterans at some 3,500 high schools across the country, are supposed to be elective, and the Pentagon has said that requiring students to take them goes against its guidelines," the report says. "But The New York Times found that THOUSANDS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS WERE BEING FUNNELED INTO THE CLASSES WITHOUT EVER HAVING CHOSEN THEM, EITHER AS AN EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT OR BY BEING AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED."
And before you ask, no, THE PENTAGON'S GROOMING PROGRAM IS NOT BEING FORCED ON KIDS IN MALIBU AND THE HAMPTONS.
"A vast majority of the schools with those high enrollment numbers were attended by a LARGE PROPORTION OF NONWHITE STUDENTS AND THOSE FROM LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS," the Times reports, naming Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, and Mobile, Alabama as cities where high schools are funneling kids into the program en masse.
What ARE Americans getting for all that money the Pentagon is spending and What will they get as it continues to spend more and more?
AN $858 BILLION DEFENSE BUDGET WILL STILL PRODUCE A ‘HOLLOW FORCE’ [Extracts] by Harlan Ullman 12/11/22
Congress is considering an $858 billion defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2023. Yet, even at that level of spending, THE U.S. MILITARY RISKS BECOMING A 21ST CENTURY VERSION OF THE “HOLLOW FORCE” THAT AROSE AFTER THE VIETNAM WAR WAS LOST. That force was unfit and unready to fight. Three critical reasons explain why the U.S. military is in trouble.
First, THE AIMS OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY (NDS) ARE UNACHIEVABLE AND THUS CANNOT BE EXECUTED.
Second, UNCONTROLLED, ANNUAL REAL COST GROWTH OF EVERY ITEM, FROM PRECISION WEAPONS TO PEOPLE TO PENCILS, EXACERBATED BY HIGH LEVELS OF INFLATION, MAKE THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED FORCE UNAFFORDABLE.
Third, THE CURRENT FORCE OF 1.4 MILLION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE GIVEN THE DECLINING NUMBER OF CIVILIANS WHO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR SERVICE AND THOSE WHO WISH TO SERVE IN UNIFORM......
….. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT $858 BILLION IS NOT ENOUGH FOR DEFENSE? In the defense world, inflation is running at about 8-10 percent. Uncontrolled internal real annual cost growth in the Pentagon is between 5-7 percent absent inflation. UNLESS ANNUAL DEFENSE INCREASES OF ABOUT 13-17 PERCENT ARE APPROVED JUST TO STAY LEVEL, THE FORCE WILL SHRINK IN SIZE AND CAPABILITY.
THAT TRANSLATES TO $120-150 BILLION JUST FOR THE FISCAL 2024 DEFENSE BUDGET. WILL CONGRESS PASS A TRILLION-DOLLAR DEFENSE BUDGET GIVEN RISING DEFICITS AND DEBTS? Probably not......
…WITH A TOTAL OF ABOUT 2.8 MILLION UNIFORM, CIVILIAN AND RESERVE PERSONNEL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD), THE AVERAGE ANNUAL COST PER PERSON IS ABOUT $300,000. THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN IN ANY OTHER LARGE ENTITY OR BUSINESS. CAN IT BE SUSTAINED?
…Recruiting and retaining both military and civilian personnel in the DOD are in crisis. Given the standards for military service, LESS THAN ONE-THIRD OF THE POTENTIAL COHORT OF PEOPLE AGED 17-30 IS AVAILABLE FOR MILITARY SERVICE. ONLY ONE IN ELEVEN AGED 17-25 EXPRESSES A WILLINGNESS TO SERVE IN UNIFORM…. .
Our pattern is to identify an enemy, preferably making it personal, and then that's supposed to justify anything we do to stop them, including but not limited to invading other countries. Then after the bad guy is deposed and the country descends into chaos and destruction we move in to rebuild it to our desires. Sometimes our actions are justified (Germany, Japan). Sometimes not, especially lately (Iraq, Lybia, Afghanistan, Ukraine/Russia). In my youth it wasn't a personal villain although we did fight in Vietnam to keep Southeast Asia from going Communist. Sixty thousand American dead later we said oh never mind. That's also what we said after Iraq and Afghanistan. This time I'm concerned that we'll get to nuclear war first. Reportedly we just gave the go ahead for Ukraine (with our help) to start attacking Russia so it looks like we're on track for that.
While Americans may not be too overly concerned about goings-on in Ukraine [as long as it doesn’t lead to a global nuclear war], they need to start getting very concerned about this.
It is highly unlikely that the people who caused this problem ~ the Federal Reserve ~ and/or the people who are benefitting most from it ~ federal government politicians, bureaucrats, and appointees addicted to Deficit Spending ~ are going to do anything about it. Even ~ at this stage of The Game ~ if they actually could..… :
Ron Paul on THE MOTHER OF ALL ECONOMIC CRISES 12 Dec 22
Nouriel Roubini, a former advisor to the International Monetary Fund and member of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, was one of the few “mainstream” economists to predict the collapse of the housing bubble. NOW ROUBINI IS WARNING THAT THE STAGGERING AMOUNTS OF DEBT HELD BY INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESSES, AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL SOON LEAD TO THE “MOTHER OF ALL ECONOMIC CRISES.”
Roubini properly blames the creation of a debt-based economy on the near-or-at-zero interest rate and quantitative easing policies pursued by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF THE ZERO-INTEREST AND QUANTITATIVE EASING POLICIES IS PRICE INFLATION WREAKING HAVOC ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
The Fed has been trying to eliminate price inflation with a series of interest rate increases. So far, these rate increases have not significantly reduced price inflation. This is because rates remain at historic lows. Yet the rate increases have had negative economic effects, including a decline in the demand for new homes. Increasing interest rates make it impossible for many middle- and working-class Americans to afford a monthly mortgage payment for even a relatively inexpensive home.
THE MAIN REASON THE FED CANNOT RAISE RATES TO ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT THEY WOULD BE IN A FREE MARKET IS THE EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO MANAGE ITS DEBT. ACCORDING TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (CBO), INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT IS ALREADY ON TRACK TO CONSUME 40 PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET BY 2052 AND WILL SURPASS DEFENSE SPENDING BY 2029! A small interest rate increase can raise yearly federal debt interest rate payments by many billions of dollars, increasing the amount of the federal budget devoted solely to servicing the debt.
The federal government’s fiscal picture is made worse by the fact that THE SOCIAL SECURITY “TRUST FUND” WILL BEGIN TO RUN DEFICITS BY 2035 WHILE THE MEDICARE TRUST FUND WILL RUN DEFICITS BY 2028. THE LOOMING BANKRUPTCY OF THE TWO MAJOR ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS, COMBINED WITH THE UNWILLINGNESS OF MOST IN CONGRESS TO REDUCE EITHER WELFARE OR WARFARE SPENDING, PUTS THE FED IN A BIND.
If it raises rates to the levels needed to really combat price inflation, the increase in interest payments will impose hardships on individuals and businesses, as well as raise federal interest payments to unsustainable levels. This will cause a major economic crisis including a government default on its debt causing a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. Also, if the Fed continues to facilitate federal deficits by monetizing the debt, the result will be an economic crisis caused by a collapse in the dollar’s value and rejection of the dollar’s world reserve status.
THE CRISIS WILL LEAD TO SOCIAL UNREST AND VIOLENCE, AS WELL AS INCREASED POPULARITY OF AUTHORITARIAN MOVEMENTS ON BOTH THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT. THIS WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT CRACKDOWNS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES AND INCREASED GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF OUR ECONOMY.
THE ONLY BRIGHT SPOT IS THIS CRISIS WILL ALSO FUEL INTEREST IN THE IDEAS OF LIBERTY AND COULD EVEN HELP BRING ABOUT A RETURN TO LIMITED, CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, FREE MARKETS, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, AND A FOREIGN POLICY OF PEACEFUL TRADE WITH ALL.
THOSE OF US WHO KNOW THE TRUTH HAVE TWO RESPONSIBILITIES. THE FIRST IS TO MAKE THE NECESSARY PLANS TO ENSURE OUR FAMILIES CAN SURVIVE THE FORTHCOMING TURMOIL. THE SECOND IS TO DO ALL WE CAN TO INTRODUCE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO THE IDEAS OF LIBERTY.
The biggest problem with America’s War with Russia in Ukraine is that the American People have not been asked by the Ruling Political Class about it, or given any choice or say in the matter. Sort of like every other War America has had since the end of World War II. Based on these poll results, it’s not difficult to understand why the RPC isn’t interested in what the People think or have to say… :
GROWING US DIVIDE ON HOW LONG TO SUPPORT UKRAINE by Dina Smeltz , Craig Kafura , and Emily Sullivan December 5, 2022
At the end of November, the United States authorized its latest assistance package to Ukraine, valued at $400 million to bolster the country’s security and defense in the war against Russia, now beginning its 10th month. A just-completed November 18-20 Chicago Council survey finds that large majorities of Americans continue to support US assistance to Ukraine, both economically and with military equipment. But as the fighting drags into winter, the overall US public is now divided on whether the United States should support Ukraine as long as it takes or if it should urge Kyiv to settle for peace as soon as possible. These findings are updates to findings of a Chicago Council Survey conducted in July.
KEY FINDINGS OF AMERICAN PUBLIC'S VIEWS ON UKRAINE WAR
An equal percentage of Americans say Russia (26%) and Ukraine (26%) has the advantage in the current conflict. But a plurality (46%) believes that neither country has the advantage.
Solid majorities of Americans continue to support supplying Ukraine with arms (65%) and economic aid (66%), accepting Ukrainian refugees (73%), and sanctioning Russia (75%).
A plurality believes the United States should maintain its current level of support for Ukraine indefinitely (40%). Nearly three in 10 each say that the United States should intervene militarily to tip the advantage to Ukraine and end the war as soon as possible (27%) or that the United States should gradually withdraw support for Ukraine (29%).
SEPARATELY, AMERICANS ARE NOW CLOSELY DIVIDED ON WHETHER WASHINGTON SHOULD SUPPORT UKRAINE “AS LONG AS IT TAKES” (48%, DOWN FROM 58% IN JULY 2022) OR WHETHER WASHINGTON SHOULD URGE UKRAINE TO SETTLE FOR PEACE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (47%, UP FROM 38% IN JULY). PERCEPTIONS OF WHO IS WINNING HAVE A GREAT BEARING ON SUPPORT FOR KYIV.
Didn't we once upon a time blame Germany's "blank check" to Austria for WW I? The trouble is that Putin is totally justified in putting a real threat threat to the security of his country - and to ethnic Russians living just beyond its western border - above the USA and West's hypocritical and sanctimonious obeisance to international law. That is what this war is about, no matter how much propaganda lipstick is smeared on this pig.
Yeah…: What could POSSIBLY go wrong? Remember: "“This is about supporting the Ukrainians, not fighting the Russians"... :
BIDEN ADMIN WANTS TO BOOST EFFORTS TO TRACK U.S. WEAPONS IN UKRAINE, MAY SEND ANOTHER HANDFUL OF TROOPS [Excerpts] by Courtney Kube and Carol E. Lee 121222
<<< Senior U.S. Officials Stressed That Any New U.S. Troop Presence In Ukraine Would Be Limited And Modest, Most Likely In The Single Digits. >>>
The Defense Department is working to shore up efforts to track weapons provided to Ukraine, according to three senior U.S. officials, including discussing whether to send a small number of additional U.S. troops to Ukraine.
The discussion comes as the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine approaches and the Biden administration contends with the ground war and a new political battlefield at home. The INCOMING REPUBLICAN HOUSE MAJORITY HAS SIGNALED IT WILL BE MORE SKEPTICAL OF A “BLANK CHECK” FOR UKRAINE AND WILL WANT MORE ACCOUNTABILITY ABOUT HOW U.S. WEAPONS ARE DISTRIBUTED AND USED. SOME GOP LAWMAKERS COULD TRY TO BLOCK ECONOMIC AND MILITARY AID — OR LIMIT U.S. TROOP PRESENCE.
The Pentagon has a couple of dozen U.S. troops in Ukraine, including a very small number already assigned to making sure weapons reach their intended recipients. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other military leaders want to enhance the accountability mission and make sure there are experts in country to help Ukraine use critical weapons systems, including air defense and counter-drone systems.
THE OFFICIALS SAID THEY WOULD LIKE TO PICK UP THE PACE OF THE WEAPONS CHECK BEFORE JANUARY, WHEN THERE WILL BE MORE PRESSURE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FROM HOUSE REPUBLICANS.
The senior U.S. officials stressed that any new troop presence would be limited and modest, most likely in the single digits. In addition to security concerns, they said, sustaining people in Kyiv remains challenging, with finite space and an unreliable supply of essentials like running water and electricity.
The State Department also caps how many U.S. government officials — civilian and military — can live and work in other countries, and that limit is low in Ukraine, officials say. Some could live and work in neighboring countries and travel in for missions if the cap is not raised, the officials said, but an increase could also spark criticism from Republicans and others that the Biden administration is pushing the limits of a pledge not to send U.S. troops to Ukraine.
“THIS IS CLASSIC MISSION CREEP,” a former U.S. official said.
“THAT’S RIDICULOUS,” A U.S. DEFENSE OFFICIAL SAID, EXPLAINING THAT IT IS AN “EXTREMELY LIMITED” ADDITIONAL PRESENCE WITH A “VERY SPECIFIC” MISSION. “THIS IS ABOUT SUPPORTING THE UKRAINIANS, NOT FIGHTING THE RUSSIANS.”
Full article at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-weighing-send-us-troops-ukraine-track-weapons-rcna61078?mod=djemCapitalJournalDaybreak [EMPHASES added.]
AMERICA'S WAR AGAINST EUROPE: What Was Uncle Sam Up To In Ukraine? by Noah Carl 120922
When it comes to explaining how we ended up with Russia launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and Europe proceeding to cut itself off from its main energy supplier, there are TWO MAIN CAMPS.
One camp says that PUTIN IS AN IMPERIALIST BENT ON RECREATING THE SOVIET UNION, WHO INVADED UKRAINE (A COUNTRY HE DOESN’T CONSIDER REAL) IN ORDER TO EXPAND RUSSIA’S TERRITORY AND POPULATION. According to this camp, there’s nothing the West could have done to prevent Putin’s invasion short of allowing Ukraine to become a hollowed-out vassal state, or arming Ukraine to the teeth in the faint hope of deterring Russian bellicosity.
The other camp says that PUTIN SAW US/NATO INVOLVEMENT IN UKRAINE AS A THREAT TO RUSSIAN INTERESTS (INCLUDING BOTH THE SECURITY OF RUSSIA ITSELF AND THE INTERESTS OF ETHNIC RUSSIANS IN THE DONBAS), AND HE INVADED THE COUNTRY AS A WAY TO NEUTRALISE THAT THREAT. According to this camp, the West could have prevented Putin’s invasion by enforcing an agreement along the lines of Minsk II, i.e., one that enshrined Ukrainian neutrality.
The key element here is US/NATO involvement, since without such involvement Kiev would never have risked provoking its larger and more powerful neighbour. Despite this, FEW IN THE SECOND CAMP TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY THE US/NATO GOT INVOLVED IN UKRAINE. Or if they do, they chalk up to “misguided policy” or “policy mistakes”; US officials were just too wedded to the principle that every state can choose its own alliances.
YET THERE’S AN ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITY: THE US GOT INVOLVED IN UKRAINE IN ORDER TO PROVOKE RUSSIA; IT TOOK THE VARIOUS ACTIONS THAT IT DID, STARTING IN 2008, WITH THE AIM OF INCITING CONFLICT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE (THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY ALL-OUT WAR).
WHY WOULD IT DO THIS? Two primary reasons. First, TO GET A GEOSTRATEGIC RIVAL BOGGED DOWN IN A COSTLY AND PROTRACTED CONFLICT, THEREBY DEGRADING ITS ECONOMY AND ARMED FORCES. Second, TO DRIVE A WEDGE BETWEEN EUROPE AND RUSSIA, THEREBY LIMITING FUTURE COOPERATION BETWEEN THEM AND CEMENTING THE POWER OF THE US-LED NATO ALLIANCE.
The first reason is self-explanatory – the US wants its rivals to be less powerful. But the second requires further elaboration. WHAT WOULD THE US HAVE TO GAIN BY DRIVING A WEDGE BETWEEN EUROPE AND RUSSIA? IN SHORT, REDUCED EUROPEAN STRATEGIC AUTONOMY AND INCREASED RELIANCE ON THE US.
Continued at https://noahcarl.substack.com/p/americas-war-against-europe {EMPHASES added.]
MILITARY GROOMERS ARE INCREASINGLY INFILTRATING US HIGH SCHOOLS by Caitlin Johnstone 121222
*** Thousands of Teens Are Being Pushed Into Military’s Junior R.O.T.C. In high schools across the country, students are being placed in military classes without electing them on their own. “The only word I can think of is ‘indoctrination,’” one parent said. ***
Protect your kids.
A New York Times report [ https://archive.vn/bI1dJ#selection-289.0-293.186 ] has found that ENROLLMENT IN THE JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS’ TRAINING CORPS (JROTC), A PENTAGON-FUNDED PROGRAM DESIGNED TO GROOM CHILDREN FOR MILITARY SERVICE, IS INCREASINGLY BECOMING MANDATORY IN US HIGH SCHOOLS.
"J.R.O.T.C. programs, taught by military veterans at some 3,500 high schools across the country, are supposed to be elective, and the Pentagon has said that requiring students to take them goes against its guidelines," the report says. "But The New York Times found that THOUSANDS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS WERE BEING FUNNELED INTO THE CLASSES WITHOUT EVER HAVING CHOSEN THEM, EITHER AS AN EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT OR BY BEING AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED."
And before you ask, no, THE PENTAGON'S GROOMING PROGRAM IS NOT BEING FORCED ON KIDS IN MALIBU AND THE HAMPTONS.
"A vast majority of the schools with those high enrollment numbers were attended by a LARGE PROPORTION OF NONWHITE STUDENTS AND THOSE FROM LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS," the Times reports, naming Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, and Mobile, Alabama as cities where high schools are funneling kids into the program en masse.
Continued at https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/military-groomers-are-increasingly [EMPHASES added.]
What ARE Americans getting for all that money the Pentagon is spending and What will they get as it continues to spend more and more?
AN $858 BILLION DEFENSE BUDGET WILL STILL PRODUCE A ‘HOLLOW FORCE’ [Extracts] by Harlan Ullman 12/11/22
Congress is considering an $858 billion defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2023. Yet, even at that level of spending, THE U.S. MILITARY RISKS BECOMING A 21ST CENTURY VERSION OF THE “HOLLOW FORCE” THAT AROSE AFTER THE VIETNAM WAR WAS LOST. That force was unfit and unready to fight. Three critical reasons explain why the U.S. military is in trouble.
First, THE AIMS OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY (NDS) ARE UNACHIEVABLE AND THUS CANNOT BE EXECUTED.
Second, UNCONTROLLED, ANNUAL REAL COST GROWTH OF EVERY ITEM, FROM PRECISION WEAPONS TO PEOPLE TO PENCILS, EXACERBATED BY HIGH LEVELS OF INFLATION, MAKE THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED FORCE UNAFFORDABLE.
Third, THE CURRENT FORCE OF 1.4 MILLION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE GIVEN THE DECLINING NUMBER OF CIVILIANS WHO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR SERVICE AND THOSE WHO WISH TO SERVE IN UNIFORM......
….. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT $858 BILLION IS NOT ENOUGH FOR DEFENSE? In the defense world, inflation is running at about 8-10 percent. Uncontrolled internal real annual cost growth in the Pentagon is between 5-7 percent absent inflation. UNLESS ANNUAL DEFENSE INCREASES OF ABOUT 13-17 PERCENT ARE APPROVED JUST TO STAY LEVEL, THE FORCE WILL SHRINK IN SIZE AND CAPABILITY.
THAT TRANSLATES TO $120-150 BILLION JUST FOR THE FISCAL 2024 DEFENSE BUDGET. WILL CONGRESS PASS A TRILLION-DOLLAR DEFENSE BUDGET GIVEN RISING DEFICITS AND DEBTS? Probably not......
…WITH A TOTAL OF ABOUT 2.8 MILLION UNIFORM, CIVILIAN AND RESERVE PERSONNEL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD), THE AVERAGE ANNUAL COST PER PERSON IS ABOUT $300,000. THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN IN ANY OTHER LARGE ENTITY OR BUSINESS. CAN IT BE SUSTAINED?
…Recruiting and retaining both military and civilian personnel in the DOD are in crisis. Given the standards for military service, LESS THAN ONE-THIRD OF THE POTENTIAL COHORT OF PEOPLE AGED 17-30 IS AVAILABLE FOR MILITARY SERVICE. ONLY ONE IN ELEVEN AGED 17-25 EXPRESSES A WILLINGNESS TO SERVE IN UNIFORM…. .
Full article at https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3770596-an-858-billion-defense-budget-will-still-produce-a-hollow-force/ {EMPHASES added.]
Our pattern is to identify an enemy, preferably making it personal, and then that's supposed to justify anything we do to stop them, including but not limited to invading other countries. Then after the bad guy is deposed and the country descends into chaos and destruction we move in to rebuild it to our desires. Sometimes our actions are justified (Germany, Japan). Sometimes not, especially lately (Iraq, Lybia, Afghanistan, Ukraine/Russia). In my youth it wasn't a personal villain although we did fight in Vietnam to keep Southeast Asia from going Communist. Sixty thousand American dead later we said oh never mind. That's also what we said after Iraq and Afghanistan. This time I'm concerned that we'll get to nuclear war first. Reportedly we just gave the go ahead for Ukraine (with our help) to start attacking Russia so it looks like we're on track for that.
While Americans may not be too overly concerned about goings-on in Ukraine [as long as it doesn’t lead to a global nuclear war], they need to start getting very concerned about this.
It is highly unlikely that the people who caused this problem ~ the Federal Reserve ~ and/or the people who are benefitting most from it ~ federal government politicians, bureaucrats, and appointees addicted to Deficit Spending ~ are going to do anything about it. Even ~ at this stage of The Game ~ if they actually could..… :
Ron Paul on THE MOTHER OF ALL ECONOMIC CRISES 12 Dec 22
https://mailchi.mp/ronpaulinstitute/econcrisis?e=31e72ff748 [EMPHASES added.]
Nouriel Roubini, a former advisor to the International Monetary Fund and member of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, was one of the few “mainstream” economists to predict the collapse of the housing bubble. NOW ROUBINI IS WARNING THAT THE STAGGERING AMOUNTS OF DEBT HELD BY INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESSES, AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL SOON LEAD TO THE “MOTHER OF ALL ECONOMIC CRISES.”
Roubini properly blames the creation of a debt-based economy on the near-or-at-zero interest rate and quantitative easing policies pursued by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF THE ZERO-INTEREST AND QUANTITATIVE EASING POLICIES IS PRICE INFLATION WREAKING HAVOC ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
The Fed has been trying to eliminate price inflation with a series of interest rate increases. So far, these rate increases have not significantly reduced price inflation. This is because rates remain at historic lows. Yet the rate increases have had negative economic effects, including a decline in the demand for new homes. Increasing interest rates make it impossible for many middle- and working-class Americans to afford a monthly mortgage payment for even a relatively inexpensive home.
THE MAIN REASON THE FED CANNOT RAISE RATES TO ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT THEY WOULD BE IN A FREE MARKET IS THE EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO MANAGE ITS DEBT. ACCORDING TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (CBO), INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT IS ALREADY ON TRACK TO CONSUME 40 PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET BY 2052 AND WILL SURPASS DEFENSE SPENDING BY 2029! A small interest rate increase can raise yearly federal debt interest rate payments by many billions of dollars, increasing the amount of the federal budget devoted solely to servicing the debt.
The federal government’s fiscal picture is made worse by the fact that THE SOCIAL SECURITY “TRUST FUND” WILL BEGIN TO RUN DEFICITS BY 2035 WHILE THE MEDICARE TRUST FUND WILL RUN DEFICITS BY 2028. THE LOOMING BANKRUPTCY OF THE TWO MAJOR ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS, COMBINED WITH THE UNWILLINGNESS OF MOST IN CONGRESS TO REDUCE EITHER WELFARE OR WARFARE SPENDING, PUTS THE FED IN A BIND.
If it raises rates to the levels needed to really combat price inflation, the increase in interest payments will impose hardships on individuals and businesses, as well as raise federal interest payments to unsustainable levels. This will cause a major economic crisis including a government default on its debt causing a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. Also, if the Fed continues to facilitate federal deficits by monetizing the debt, the result will be an economic crisis caused by a collapse in the dollar’s value and rejection of the dollar’s world reserve status.
THE CRISIS WILL LEAD TO SOCIAL UNREST AND VIOLENCE, AS WELL AS INCREASED POPULARITY OF AUTHORITARIAN MOVEMENTS ON BOTH THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT. THIS WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT CRACKDOWNS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES AND INCREASED GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF OUR ECONOMY.
THE ONLY BRIGHT SPOT IS THIS CRISIS WILL ALSO FUEL INTEREST IN THE IDEAS OF LIBERTY AND COULD EVEN HELP BRING ABOUT A RETURN TO LIMITED, CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, FREE MARKETS, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, AND A FOREIGN POLICY OF PEACEFUL TRADE WITH ALL.
THOSE OF US WHO KNOW THE TRUTH HAVE TWO RESPONSIBILITIES. THE FIRST IS TO MAKE THE NECESSARY PLANS TO ENSURE OUR FAMILIES CAN SURVIVE THE FORTHCOMING TURMOIL. THE SECOND IS TO DO ALL WE CAN TO INTRODUCE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO THE IDEAS OF LIBERTY.
NOTE: The article Paul refers to ~ THE UNAVOIDABLE CRASH ~ by Nouriel Roubini is at https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stagflationary-economic-financial-and-debt-crisis-by-nouriel-roubini-2022-12.
The biggest problem with America’s War with Russia in Ukraine is that the American People have not been asked by the Ruling Political Class about it, or given any choice or say in the matter. Sort of like every other War America has had since the end of World War II. Based on these poll results, it’s not difficult to understand why the RPC isn’t interested in what the People think or have to say… :
GROWING US DIVIDE ON HOW LONG TO SUPPORT UKRAINE by Dina Smeltz , Craig Kafura , and Emily Sullivan December 5, 2022
At the end of November, the United States authorized its latest assistance package to Ukraine, valued at $400 million to bolster the country’s security and defense in the war against Russia, now beginning its 10th month. A just-completed November 18-20 Chicago Council survey finds that large majorities of Americans continue to support US assistance to Ukraine, both economically and with military equipment. But as the fighting drags into winter, the overall US public is now divided on whether the United States should support Ukraine as long as it takes or if it should urge Kyiv to settle for peace as soon as possible. These findings are updates to findings of a Chicago Council Survey conducted in July.
KEY FINDINGS OF AMERICAN PUBLIC'S VIEWS ON UKRAINE WAR
An equal percentage of Americans say Russia (26%) and Ukraine (26%) has the advantage in the current conflict. But a plurality (46%) believes that neither country has the advantage.
Solid majorities of Americans continue to support supplying Ukraine with arms (65%) and economic aid (66%), accepting Ukrainian refugees (73%), and sanctioning Russia (75%).
A plurality believes the United States should maintain its current level of support for Ukraine indefinitely (40%). Nearly three in 10 each say that the United States should intervene militarily to tip the advantage to Ukraine and end the war as soon as possible (27%) or that the United States should gradually withdraw support for Ukraine (29%).
SEPARATELY, AMERICANS ARE NOW CLOSELY DIVIDED ON WHETHER WASHINGTON SHOULD SUPPORT UKRAINE “AS LONG AS IT TAKES” (48%, DOWN FROM 58% IN JULY 2022) OR WHETHER WASHINGTON SHOULD URGE UKRAINE TO SETTLE FOR PEACE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (47%, UP FROM 38% IN JULY). PERCEPTIONS OF WHO IS WINNING HAVE A GREAT BEARING ON SUPPORT FOR KYIV.
Full Report at https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/growing-us-divide-how-long-support-ukraine [EMPHASIS added.]
Hi Bill. i am looking forward to Your response to the three Comments on the WordPress Bracing Views.