Thursday, March 10, 2022

Jussie Smollett Goes Bananas in Courtroom After Sentence of 150 Days in Cook County Jail, Effective Immediately


Hate crime hoaxer Jussie Smollett was fined $25,000, ordered to pay $120,106 in restitution, given 30 months of felony probation and sentenced to spend the next 150 days in the Cook County jail – to begin immediately.

Smollett went bananas after he was asked by Cook County Judge James Linn if he had any questions, shouting “Your honor, I respect you, and I respect the jury, but I did not do this. And I am not suicidal. And if anything happens to me when I go in there, I did not do it to myself. And you must all know that.”  As deputies led him from the courtroom, Smollett shouted out again.  “I am innocent,” he yelled, raising his first. “I could have said I am guilty a long time ago.” [AP Report HERE]  WATCH:



Behind the Scenes, Billionaires Shape French Presidential Campaign

 

PARIS — The face of President Emmanuel Macron’s possibly fiercest rival in France’s coming election is not on any campaign poster. He has not given a single speech. His name will not be on the ballot.

He is not a candidate at all, but the man often described as France’s Rupert Murdoch: Vincent Bolloré, the billionaire whose conservative media empire has complicated Mr. Macron’s carefully plotted path to re-election by propelling the far-right candidacy of Éric Zemmour, the biggest star of Mr. Bolloré’s Fox-style news network, CNews.

With the first round of France’s presidential election just a month away, polls show Mr. Macron as the favorite. But it is Mr. Zemmour who has set the themes of the race with the openly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim views he had put forth each evening on television for the past couple of years.  


“Bolloré’s channels have largely created Zemmour,” François Hollande, France’s former president, said in an interview.

But Mr. Zemmour’s emergence is just the latest example of the power of France’s media tycoons, Mr. Bolloré most prominent among them, to shape political fortunes. In a nation with very strict campaign finance laws, control over the news media has long provided an avenue for the very rich to influence elections.

“If you’re a billionaire, you can’t entirely finance a campaign,” said Julia Cagé, an economist specializing in the media at Sciences Po, “but you can buy a newspaper and put it at the disposal of a campaign.”  


In the long run-up to the current campaign, the competition for influence has been especially frenzied, with some of France’s richest men locked in a fight over some of the nation’s top television networks, radio stations and publications.

The emergence of Mr. Bolloré, in particular, has intensified the jockeying in this election season as he buys up media properties and turns them into news outlets pushing a hard right-wing agenda.

The phenomenon is new in the French media landscape, and it has prompted fierce jostling among other billionaires for media holdings. It has been the hidden drama behind the 2022 elections, with some of the media billionaires angling strongly against Mr. Macron, and others in support of him.  


On one side are Mr. Bolloré and his media group, Vivendi; on the other are billionaires regarded as Mr. Macron’s allies, including Bernard Arnault, the head of the LVMH luxury empire.

The political reach of media tycoons has become enough of a concern that the French Senate has opened an inquiry. In hearings broadcast live in January and February, they all denied any political motive. Mr. Bolloré said his interests were “purely economic.” Mr. Arnault said his investments in the news media were akin to “patronage.”

But there is little doubt that their media holdings give them leverage that France’s campaign finance laws would otherwise deny them. In France, political TV ads are not allowed in the six months before an election. Corporate donations to candidates are banned.  


Personal gifts to a campaign are limited to 4,600 euros, or about $5,000. In this election cycle, presidential candidates cannot spend more than €16.9 million each, or about $18.5 million, on their campaigns for the first round; the two finalists are then limited to a total of €22.5 million each, or about $24.7 million. By comparison, when he was a presidential candidate, Joseph R. Biden Jr. raised more than $1 billion for his 2020 campaign.  


“Why do you think that these French capitalists whose names you know buy Le Monde, Les Echos, Le Parisien?” Jean-Michel Baylet, whose family has owned a powerful group of newspapers in southwest France for generations, said in an interview, mentioning some of the country’s biggest newspapers.

“They’re buying influence,” said Mr. Baylet, a former minister of territorial cohesion, who himself has been accused of using his media outlets to advance a parallel career in politics — a charge he denies.  



The control of media by industrialists, whose core businesses depend on government contracts in construction or defense, amounts to “a conflict of interests,” said Aurélie Filippetti, who oversaw the media sector as a minister of culture.

Armed with media properties, businessmen enjoy leverage over politicians.

“Politicians are always afraid that newspapers will fall into unfriendly hands,” said Claude Perdriel, the main shareholder of Challenges, a weekly magazine, who said that he made sure to sell his previous outlets, including the magazine L’Obs, to other businessmen who shared his left-leaning politics.

For Mr. Macron, that is what happened when early this year Jérôme Béglé, who is a frequent guest on CNews, took over the Journal du Dimanche, a Sunday newspaper once so pro-Macron that it was called the “Pravda” of the government. After Mr. Bolloré gained control over the newspaper’s parent company last fall, it began publishing critical articles and unflattering photos of Mr. Macron.

 

 

It recently zeroed in on what right-wing competitors consider the most vulnerable aspect of Mr. Macron’s record: his crime policy, which the publication referred to as a failure and his “Achilles’ heel.”

Though not widely read, the newspaper enjoys a following among the French political and economic elite and an agenda-setting role. “It’s one of the two or three most influential newspapers,” said Gaspard Gantzer, a presidential spokesman under Mr. Hollande.  



One of Mr. Bolloré’s television channels, the youth-oriented C8, has served as a powerful echo chamber for promoting far-right ideas. A recent study by the CNRS, France’s national research organization, showed that from September to December last year, C8’s most popular show devoted 53 percent of its time to the far right and to one figure in particular: Mr. Zemmour.

But it is through CNews, created in 2017 after his takeover of the Canal Plus network, that Mr. Bolloré continues to extend his influence in the final stretches of the campaign. With its ability to shape the national debate around issues like immigration, Islam and crime, CNews quickly grew into a new, and feared, political force in France. It made Mr. Zemmour, a newspaper reporter and best-selling author, a star.  

“We’re obviously quite worried about the editorial line of this type of media,” said Sacha Houlié, a lawmaker and a spokesman for the Macron campaign. “We keep an eye on it.”

According to a study co-written by Ms. Cagé, about 22 percent of the speaking time on CNews was filled by far-right guests during the 2019-2020 season, a 200 percent increase compared with the situation before Mr. Bolloré took over.

But Mr. Macron is not without allies. Two other billionaires — Mr. Arnault, the chief executive of LVMH and France’s richest man; and Xavier Niel, the telecommunications tycoon and the partner of Mr. Arnault’s daughter — have both publicly expressed support for Mr. Macron in the past.

Mr. Niel, Mr. Arnault and Yannick Bolloré, Mr. Bolloré’s son and the chairman of Vivendi’s supervisory board, declined interview requests for this article.

Mr. Arnault owns Les Echos, the country’s leading business newspaper, and Le Parisien, one of its most popular dailies, both of which have been barely critical of Mr. Macron. Mr. Arnault also entered into a confrontation against Mr. Bolloré in a long, drawn-out battle for control over an ailing media group, Lagardère.  


Mr. Bolloré eventually won control over Lagardère, and its radio station, Europe 1, was quickly turned into an audio version of CNews.   


Wary of Mr. Bolloré’s influence, the Macron government has sought to counter him.

When Mr. Bolloré tried last year to buy M6, a private French television channel owned by the German media conglomerate Bertelsmann, the government sided with one of Mr. Bolloré’s rivals: Bouygues, the owner of TF1, France’s biggest television channel.

Most government officials expressed support for the deal — except the head of the antitrust authority whose mandate was subsequently not renewed, contrary to expectations. If the merger of TF1 and M6 goes through, it would create a giant controlling 70 percent of France’s television advertising.

Mr. Houlié, the spokesman for the Macron campaign, said that the government’s endorsement of the TF1-M6 deal was intended to create a counterweight to Canal Plus, Mr. Bolloré’s network.

Still, it is Mr. Bolloré who has perhaps had the greatest effect on this season’s campaign.  


“He allowed the creation of a Zemmour candidacy,” said Alexis Lévrier, a media historian at the University of Reims, adding that it illustrated the power of media tycoons — which, in this case, has resulted in a candidacy that has pushed talk on Islam and immigration to extremes.

“That,” he said, “makes the script of this campaign fascinating and frightening.”  






https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/world/europe/france-presidential-election-media-cnews-.html?smid=tw-share

A Ray of Hope: Russian Proposals Offer a Way Out of Our Common Predicament

Leaders in Ukraine, Russia, and throughout the West should consider the risks of proceeding on the current path, and they should make affirmative decisions to change course. 


Earlier this week, Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov made explicit the terms under which his country would be willing to cease its invasion of Ukraine. Russia insists that the Ukrainian military must lay down its arms, that Ukraine’s constitution be amended to guarantee the country’s neutrality, that Crimea be recognized as part of Russia, and that the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine’s east be recognized as independent. 

While anti-Russian zealots in the West and fervent Ukrainian patriots may balk at these demands, they nonetheless reveal a path by which Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and the United States could reverse the current momentum favoring constant escalation in fiery rhetoric, harsh economic sanctions, and direct military action. We should, in fact, consider meeting some of Russia’s demands, or at least encouraging the Ukrainians to do so, in order to unwind the toxic dynamics of a conflict that, arguably, serves the interests of no one.

Russia’s demand that the Ukrainian military cease its operations amounts to a proposal for an effective ceasefire. Many such ceasefires have been proposed in the course of the long-running war in eastern Ukraine as well as in the course of more recent hostilities, but few have worked in practice. Nonetheless, if sufficient will exists on both sides, the termination of active fighting is achievable.

Russia’s demand that Ukraine pledge its neutrality, forswear NATO membership, and enshrine these commitments in its constitution represents the core Russian proposal, the spurning of which necessitated, in Putin’s eyes, the invasion of Ukraine in the first place. Ukraine was encouraged by the West to reject Russian suggestions that Ukraine’s burgeoning ties with NATO and the EU represented a threat to Russian security. Ukraine is now reaping the bitter harvest that such well-meaning advice has produced.

It is hard to see why Ukraine would not have agreed to pursue a neutral political-military course before Russia launched its invasion, given its obvious exposure to Russian political, economic, and military power. Now that the very survival of Ukraine as an independent state has been cast into doubt, one would think that the arguments for a policy of strict neutrality have become, if anything, even more compelling. 

Ukraine should agree to give up its ambitions of joining NATO, and if necessary the EU as well. Positive, fruitful relations between Ukraine and the West can and will be achieved, but only if Ukraine gets its house in order in terms of Russia-Ukraine relations and avoids provocations that offend its much more powerful neighbor. Simply put, Ukraine cannot prosper, and it may not even endure as a country, unless it finds a way to coexist amicably with Russia.

If Ukraine had learned these vital lessons earlier, it likely would not be facing the more-or-less inevitable loss of its pro-Russian regions, including Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Ukraine should accept that these areas will not again come under its direct control. Formalizing its loss of sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk would, as a matter of fact, be preferable to leaving these regions in political limbo, and thus leaving open the possibility that their status might be resolved in the future by military means. 

Forfeiting these areas is the price Ukraine must pay for a comprehensive, lasting solution to its poor relations with Moscow. It is a price worth paying, especially given the fact that Russia is militarily capable of taking even more of Ukraine and of causing far greater harm, to vulnerable Ukrainian civilians and to Ukraine’s vital infrastructure and social and economic fabric.

Western leaders are clearly now in the full bloom of moral indignation against Vladimir Putin and the Russian military. Their outrage and their anger will make it difficult for them to make clear-headed decisions about what is best for Ukraine, for NATO, for the West, and ultimately for Russia, too. The current conflict is one that imposes, or could impose, horrific damage on all the interested parties. The longer the conflict goes on, moreover, the more the Ukrainian and Russian peoples will suffer, albeit in different ways. Worse, the longer the conflict lasts, and the more it escalates, the greater is the danger of a fatal miscalculation leading to armed conflict between Russia and NATO, the full consequences of which would be horrific in the extreme.

Leaders in Ukraine, Russia, and throughout the West should thus consider the risks of proceeding on our current path, and they should make affirmative decisions to change course. The differences between Russia and Ukraine are far from irresolvable, and they need not—must not!—drag us all into World War III.

Now is the moment for statesmanlike leaders to step back from the brink, therefore, before the war of words between Russia and the West becomes a shooting war, and stakes considerably graver than the peace, prosperity, and freedom of Ukraine are on the line.


X22, And we Know, and more-March 10

 



Evening. Here's tonight's news: (got a big NCIS LA article coming tomorrow, you're gonna love it!)


The Green Immoralists ~ VDH

Elite ideology divorced from reality 
impoverishes people and can get them killed.


Thousands are dying from Russian missiles and bombs in the suburbs of Ukraine. 

In response, the Biden Administration’s climate-change envoy, multimillionaire and private-jet owning John Kerry, laments that Russian president Vladimir Putin might no longer remain his partner in reducing global warming.

“You’re going to lose people’s focus,” Kerry frets. “You’re going to lose big-country attention because they will be diverted, and I think it could have a damaging impact”

“Impact”? 

Did the global moralist Kerry mean by “impact” the over 650 Russian missiles that impacted Ukrainian buildings and tore apart children? 

Are Russian soldiers losing their green “focus”? When Putin threatens nuclear war is he merely “diverted”? Would letting off a few nukes be “damaging” to the human environment?

Climate-change moralists love humanity so much in the abstract that they must shut down its life-giving gas, coal, and oil in the concrete. And they value humans so little that they don’t worry in the here and now that ensuing fuel shortages and exorbitant costs cause wars, spike inflation, and threaten people’s ability to travel or keep warm.

The Biden Administration stopped all gas and oil production in the ANWR region of Alaska. It ended all new federal leases for drilling. It is cancelling major new pipelines. It is leveraging lending agencies not to finance oil and gas drilling. 

It helped force the cancellation of the EastMed pipeline that would have brought needed natural gas to southern Europe. And it has in just a year managed to turn the greatest oil and gas producer in the history of the world into a pathetic global fossil-fuel beggar. 

Now gas is heading to well over $5 a gallon. In overregulated blue states, it will likely hit $7. 

The result is left-wing terror that the voters in the coming midterm election might rightly blame Democrats for hamstringing the American ability to travel, keep warm in winter and cool in summer, and buy affordable food.

But how will the Biden Administration square the circle of its own ideological war against oil and natural gas versus handing the advantage to our oil- and gas-producing enemies, as Russia invades Ukraine?

Or put another way, when selfish theory hits deadly reality, who loses? Answer: the American people.

Joe Biden lifted U.S. sanctions on the Russian-German Nord Stream 2 pipeline designed to provide green Germany with loathsome, but life-saving, natural gas. 

But first Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States. Biden has no problem with pipelines per se, just American ones. 

While he doesn’t like the idea of Germany burning carbon fuel, or Vladimir Putin reaping enormous profits from Berlin’s self-created dependency, or Germans importing liquified natural gas from America, Biden also does not like the idea of forcing German families to turn off their thermostats in mid-winter when there is Russian-fed war not far from Germany’s borders.

Here at home, Biden gets even crazier. As our enemies around the world reap huge profits from record high oil and gas prices, did Biden ask Alaska, North Dakota, or Texas to ramp up production? 

In other words, did he ask Americans to save fellow cash-strapped Americans from a self-created energy crisis, in the way he assured the Germans that during war reality trumps theory? 

Not at all.

Instead, Biden came up with the most lunatic idea in recent diplomatic history of begging autocratic and hostile regimes the world over to pump more oil to lower America’s gas prices.

For years, America has sanctioned the oil-rich Venezuelan dictatorship, a narco-terrorist state that wars on its own people and its neighbors. Now Biden is begging strongman Nicolás Maduro to pump the supposedly dirty fuels America has in even greater abundance but finds it too icky to produce.

Biden also has beseeched the once sanctioned, terrorist Iranian government. He wants Tehran to help us out by upping the very oil and gas production that America has tried to curtail for years. In return, Iran is demanding a new “Iran Deal” that will soon ensure the now petro-rich theocracy the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

On the eve of the Russian invasion, Biden begged Putin to pump even more oil to supplement its current Russian imports to the United States. 

Did Putin see that surreal request as yet another sign of American appeasement that might greenlight his upcoming planned invasion? In Russian eyes, was it more proof of American weakness and craziness after the humiliating flight from Afghanistan?

Biden has blasted the human rights record of the Saudi Arabian royal family. Now he is begging the monarchy to pump more of its despised carbon-spewing oil to make up for what his administration shut down at home. Is that why the Saudi royals refused to take his call?

The moral of Biden’s oil madness?

Elite ideology divorced from reality impoverishes people and can get them killed.



Putin Has Put the West Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Without energy, nothing in our world functions. We tried to reinvent the wheel from gender to energy, the Russians worked to fuel its spin.


Is Vladimir Putin a genius or a madman?  Or does he just understand his geopolitical opponents too well?

Whatever the case may be, his actions have revealed the intellectual shallowness of our leadership class. 

For the briefest of moments, on February 24 as tanks rolled through the Ukrainian countryside, Russian aggression seemed to have achieved the impossible. 

The world stood united against the aggressor. 

The European Union, atypically, felt the distant winds of relevance brace her rickety structure. 

Indeed, reaching beyond her remit, she would fund arms deliveries to Ukraine.

In turn, Germany pledged to spend 100 billion euros on defense through a one-off “special fund” to bolster Germany’s defenses. 

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz ushered in a “new era” by promising to spend more than 2 percent of his country’s gross national product on the military .

He added: “President Putin should not underestimate our determination to defend every square metre of [NATO] territory together with our allies.” 

The international community would work together to impose the harshest of all sanctions. In short, to use the modern vernacular, the Bear would be “canceled”. 

In barely a fortnight, however, the mood changed as the costs of sanctions became manifest.  

Energy costs, already high, have skyrocketed overnight. 

Oil hit a 14-year high at the beginning of the week. Commodities, from crude oil to wheat and soybeans have risen between a third and a half over the last few days

Inflation, already extremely high given the absence of interest to offset the monetary value destruction, is set to climb higher still. 

This will destroy a great deal of our people’s ability to pay for the essentials of life.

As night follows day, our leading European cicadas started to play a very different tune as the financial winter made itself more apparent. 

The beginning of the walk back took place at a discreet gathering on March 4. 

That day, Robert Habeck, the (Green) German business minister, notified the world that Germany stood firmly behind Ukraine, with only one small caveat. 

We are “strictly against an import ban on oil, gas or coal from Russia,” he said, adding: “I would even oppose it because we would endanger social peace in the republic.” 

To clarify the issue, the German chancellor on Monday added that Europe had “deliberately exempted” Russian energy from sanctions because its supply cannot be secured “any other way.” 

A week ago, Scholz insisted NATO would not intervene in the conflict, highlighting, rightly perhaps, the dangers involved when dealing with a “nuclear power.”  

With half of Germany’s gas supplies coming from Russia, an import ban would have been an act of grand economic self-harm. 

In short, Ukrainians could count on Germany to stand shoulder to shoulder with them so long as doing so was deemed cost free—“with friends like these . . .” the Ukrainians might be tempted to think

At a press conference in the UK, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte repeated the same message

The “painful reality,” Rutte said, “is we are still very much dependent on Russian gas and Russian oil and if you now force European companies to quit doing business with Russia that would have enormous ramifications around Europe including Ukraine but also around the world.”

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated the obvious: “The world cannot close down the use of oil and gas overnight, even from Russia.”  

In the meantime on the same day, at a press conference 5,000 miles away in Beijing, China’s foreign minister Wang Yi called the Russian-China axis “one of the most crucial bilateral relationships in the world.” 

In another blow to Western leadership, India remained silent, along with, irony of ironies, Pakistan, India’s greatest rival. India has a history of non-alignment. It also has very long-standing historical ties with Russia, in particular in the field of armament. 

The world then is not united. It rarely is.

What is noticeable is how little desire there is to stand up for Ukraine beyond platitudes, propaganda, and Polish verve. 

The reason for this is simply that it has been a long while since our leaders gave any serious thoughts to geopolitics, realpolitik, and strategy. 

The dominating view among our superiors has been and still remains the creation of a world without nation-states and, therefore, without borders. 

This nirvana would be ruled by a small group of enlightened people through the agency of international bureaucracies, out of reach of the electorate’s dirty grasp—and out of touch with much else besides.

So while the West spent the last couple decades untethering itself from realities, focusing rather on absurd and arbitrary climate targets, disinvesting its own energy infrastructure and capabilities and, criminally, providing no actual alternatives to its people, Russia used our leaders’ distracted mental state to establish a commanding energy supremacy in the West and East. 

The world did not change with the invasion of Ukraine. 

It remains the tough place it always was. There are some unchangeable truths. 

Without energy, nothing in our world functions. We tried to reinvent the wheel from gender to energy, the Russians worked to fuel its spin. 

Our established order forgot about its key function: the maintenance and advancement of our way of life. 

Instead, they have worked overtime to dismantle our inheritance.

For a brief moment, the world seemed to bask in a new light of international cooperation and enjoying the thrill of imposing supposedly cost-free sanctions on Russia, and as our news media delighted in reporting the crash of the Ruble, the pending default of Russia’s sovereign bonds, and the banning of Russia TV from our screens. Yet, when Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was asked about Western sanctions, he said his chief was “indifferent.” 

Putin perhaps is neither mad, nor a genius. Unlike Western leaders, he might just know what he wants and have planned accordingly over two decades: to bring back Ukraine in the Bear’s embrace 

And from a position of ostensible weakness, Putin made Russia indispensable and hard to hurt, regardless of his troops’ performance on the field. Maybe he played chess while our leaders played checkers. And that wouldn’t be the first time. 


The U.S. And NATO Have No Strategy To Aid Ukraine And Defeat Russia

The confusion over providing fighter jets to Ukraine underscores a dangerous reality: NATO has no end-game and no off-ramps for this war.



A remarkable exchange took place this week between the United States and Poland, which shares a long border with Ukraine and likely would be first to get hit by Russian forces if the war expands beyond Ukrainian territory. The exchange was not only embarrassing, highlighting the U.S. State Department’s incompetence, but it underscores what can only be described as a complete absence of strategy among the NATO allies, which appear to have no end-game and no off-ramps in mind for Ukraine and Russia. 

Here’s what happened. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said Sunday that Poland has a “green light” to provide fighter jets to the Ukrainian air force, adding that the U.S. was working with Poland to find a way to replace MiG-29 jets (which Ukrainian pilots are trained to fly and fight) that might be sent to Ukraine with American F-16s.

News quickly spread on Monday that the U.S. and Poland had reached such a deal, and that dozens of Polish MiG-29s were in fact going to supplement Ukraine’s war effort. If true, that would have been a shocking escalation on the part of NATO. It’s easy to see how Russia could then claim that Poland, by putting its own warplanes in the fight, was now a belligerent in the conflict, and then justify expanding the war into Eastern Europe.

But it wasn’t true — not quite. Poland, acutely aware of what Moscow’s likely response would be if dozens of Polish warplanes flown by Ukrainian pilots crossed from Poland into Ukraine and started hitting Russian targets, issued a curious statement on Tuesday. The Polish Foreign Ministry said it was ready to deploy, free of charge, all their MiG-29 jets to the Ramstein Air Base in Germany, “and place them at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America.”

The statement went on to request that the U.S. “provide us with used aircraft with corresponding operational capabilities. Poland is ready to immediately establish the conditions of purchase of the planes. The Polish Government also requests other NATO Allies — owners of MIG-29 jets — to act in the same vein.”

This move by Poland apparently caught the U.S. State Department completely off-guard. Later on Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby responded to the Polish proposal, which he said, “shows just some of the complexities this issue presents.”

The prospect of fighter jets “at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America” departing from a U.S./NATO base in Germany to fly into airspace that is contested with Russia over Ukraine raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance. It is simply not clear to us that there is a substantive rationale for it. We will continue to consult with Poland and our other NATO allies about this issue and the difficult logistical challenges it presents, but we do not believe Poland’s proposal is a tenable one.

What can we conclude from this bizarre back-and-forth? First, that Blinken’s “green light” comment Sunday was made without consulting Poland or our other NATO allies. Second, that Poland’s statement Tuesday was a not-too-subtle attempt to shift the responsibility for the entire scheme to the United States. Essentially, Poland was saying that if the U.S. government wants to aide Ukraine by giving it warplanes, Poland would not be the one to transfer or even facilitate the transfer of those aircraft onto the battlefield. They would have to come from a U.S. air base, not Poland.

Lastly, the U.S. response reveals that despite Blinken’s reckless comment, the U.S. has not thought seriously about how any of this would work, and what might or might not give Moscow a casus belli to attack Polish or NATO targets in Eastern Europe.

In other words, there is no NATO strategy, either to assist Ukraine in a way that would turn the tide of the war or to imagine an end-game that’s something less than a total Russian defeat. Last week, Blinken articulated what can best be described as a maximalist policy for the war: “We have to sustain this until it stops, until the war is over, Russian forces leave, the Ukrainian people regain their independence, their sovereignty, their territorial integrity. We’re committed to doing that.”

So the apparent position of the U.S. government is that it must help Ukraine to bring about a complete humiliating Russian withdrawal, something like the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 — or the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan last year, for that matter. If the NATO allies are worried that Russia will widen the war over a couple dozen Polish MiG-29s, what do they think the Kremlin will do to avoid the kind of defeat that Blinken has laid out? Have they thought about the possibility that Russia would use tactical nuclear weapons to avoid that kind of defeat? It sure doesn’t seem like it.

Setting all that aside, though, the U.S. and our NATO allies have just demonstrated to Russia and the entire world that we have no plan to provide Ukraine with warplanes, let alone tanks or troops or other advanced weapon systems. The NATO allies obviously don’t even agree on how that might be done in theory, and they apparently are not talking to one another about it behind closed doors but issuing embarrassing and contradictory statements in public.

As my colleague Eddie Scarry notes, all of this blows up the polite fiction that President Joe Biden is providing strong NATO leadership, and that the alliance is solid and united in confronting Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It also blows up the notion, increasingly popular among neocons in the corporate press and in Washington, that NATO is able to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and can be pressured into doing so. If the Poles won’t even allow its MiG-29s to be transferred to Ukraine via Polish airspace, why would they agree to send sorties out from Poland to engage and shoot down Russian warplanes? Why would smaller NATO allies in the Baltics?

They won’t — and they shouldn’t, because doing so would be an act of war that would pull the entire NATO alliance into an armed conflict with Russia. Likewise, funneling warplanes and other heavy weapons into Ukraine will bring NATO right up to and arguably well past the line of belligerence. To paraphrase the Pentagon, the proposal is not a tenable one.



Was Nancy Pelosi Drunk at Her Latest Presser?


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

There’s a lot going on in the world right now. Luckily, the United States is led by the best and brightest among us, not the least of which are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Joe Biden. What could possibly go wrong with such mental giants making major decisions for the nation?

Jokes aside, we are actually led by geriatric dunces who couldn’t successfully manage a McDonald’s restaurant. Given that, it was no surprise when Biden flaunted his senility again on Wednesday. Apparently feeling left out of the conversation, Pelosi then put on a performance that left me wondering if she was drunk.

I’m not kidding. It was that bad.

Glad we got that figured out. Until Pelosi enlightened me, I was unaware that subtracting something leads to the subtraction of something. Truly, this is the stuff great leaders are made of.

Be sure to watch that last clip. What is she even doing grabbing her hair like that? It’s like she’s got some weird tick she can’t control. And while the surface-level criticisms are easy pickings, the content of her presser wasn’t any better. At one point, while commenting on the Ukraine aid package, she appeared to not even know how much money was involved, stating “Whatever we have right now, the $13B, or whatever.”

Again, this is the person who controls the nation’s finances, and she can’t even be bothered to know the dollar amount of the bills she supports. Keep in mind that she’s also trying to pass a $1.5 trillion spending bill right now as well, while only giving House members half a day to read the 2,000+ pages. Our elected officials are a complete joke. You wouldn’t tolerate this kind of incompetence from a cashier. Why tolerate it from the Speaker of the House.

Things got weirder, though. At one point, Pelosi spoke about her call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, treating the situation with none of the seriousness it deserves.

I’m not really into women’s tennis, so I’m not totally sure who Billie Jean King is, and perhaps I’m missing some tie-in here, but I’m fairly certain Zelensky doesn’t care what she said. The guy is fighting for his life and his country right now. Besides, is that really a topic that Pelosi should be joking about? She had the chance to talk to the leader of Ukraine as he’s fighting the Russians, and the best she could come up with was some tortured feminism plug — as if Zelensky cares about “International Women’s Day?”

At this point, I’m pretty sure Pelosi being inebriated would be the most acceptable explanation for what transpired at this presser. If she was actually sober, that’s a scary proposition. The United States really needs age limits for elected office. There is no reason for an 81-year-old to be holding such a high position of power. If the boomers keep refusing to let go, the voters need to not give them a choice.


🍸

Hillary Vows To Stop Importing Dossiers From Russia



WASHINGTON, D.C.—Beloved feminist icon and 2024 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has announced she will be joining efforts to halt Russian aggression. Starting this week, she has promised to stop importing dossiers from Russia. 

"For a long time, I have relied on Russian intelligence as a prime source for phony dirt on my political appointments," said Clinton as she adjusted the scope on her high-powered sniper rifle. "Starting today, I will refuse to import my disinformation or even my hitmen from Russian sources—that is, unless it's absolutely necessary."

Sources in Russia say this will cost the Russian economy over 3,000 jobs, which were previously filled with people working full-time writing phony dossiers for Hillary Clinton. In a statement, President Putin said he was sad to see his close, longtime relationship with Clinton going south. "I thought that big red reset button meant something to you!" he said. 

For the time being, the Clintons have committed to buying their disinformation only from domestic sources like The Washington Post. 

Bill Clinton also joined the fight, promising to stop importing underage women from Russia.