W³P Lives: 04/04/25

Friday, April 4, 2025

The Malignance of Rooting Against America

The morning after President Donald J. Trump announced a new chapter in American prosperity by imposing reciprocal tariffs on foreign countries, my Salem Radio Network colleague Mike Gallagher posed a fascinating question to his nationwide audience: “Whether it is the Democrats or legacy media outlets or RINO Republicans with no backbone, why do you suppose so many people are voicing their hopes that America fails?”

It's true. Donald Trump ran for—and won—the Presidency, promising to end the decades long rip-off of America by what we laughingly refer to as “global trading partners.” These so called partners have slapped tariffs on American products while crying crocodile tears at any hint the United States will stand up for our own interests by imposing reciprocal tariffs. Now that the White House has declared a minimum 10% tariff on products from every foreign nation and even higher tariffs on many countries, the Democrats, RINOs and their acolytes in the media have a new bone to chew on….since their absurd week-long “Signal-gate scandal” gained exactly zero traction.

“Tariff-gate” (ugh) has pumped some new spring into their steps, and from MSNBC to the New York Times to the usual pious bloviators like Democratic Senators Richard Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Duckworth, naysayers are popping up on TV news programs like Bluebonnets across the Texas plains this month. Joining the usual Donkey suspects are alleged Republicans like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and the bitter former GOP leader of the Senate Mitch “his term cannot end soon enough” McConnell.

A sampling of national headlines includes “Tariffs Send Wall St. Tumbling Toward Worst Day Since 2022” (The New York Times) – “World leaders blast Trump tariffs” (ABC News) – “The false things Trump said about tariffs during his announcement” (The Washington Post) – “It’s Donald Trump vs. The World” (CNN) - and “Policies like Trump’s gave us the Great Depression a century ago” (San Francisco Chronicle). Scraping the bottom of the Trump-hating barrel, NBC News.com even featured an interview with one of America’s biggest names in retail—Johnathan Echeverry, owner of something called the Paper Plane Coffee Company—who offered this hand-wringing economic analysis: “It’s the cups we serve it in, the lids, the sugar, the stirrers, the sleeves, the equipment we use, even the espresso machines. ... All of that stuff comes from somewhere and all of it gets more expensive when tariffs like these go into place,” Echeverry bemoaned while urging Americans to contact their representatives to oppose the Trump tariffs.

(Historical sidebar: during the Vietnam War, when President Lyndon Johnson learned that CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite had declared the war unwinnable, LBJ reportedly told aides: “If we’ve lost Walter Cronkite, we’ve lost this war.” Our 47th President is made of stronger stuff than LBJ was, so my guess is he won’t be shaken to abandon America’s trade war when he learns the owner of the Paper Plane Coffee Company wants to throw in the towel after less than one day since tariffs were imposed.)

This is the template used by malcontents in government and media who despise the concept of America First…the very theme that swept Donald Trump back into the White House. If DOGE or Elon Musk uncover billions in waste, fraud and abuse…focus on one disgruntled ticket holder to the now defunded DEI musical in Ireland. If Trump deports violent gang members (all of whom were illegal aliens) to a maximum security prison in El Salvador, single out one whose mother goes on camera crying that her kid is—wait for it—“a good boy who just got in with a bad crowd.” If America declares Economic Independence Day and wants to eliminate the unfairness in our Free Trade with “allies,” trot out the head of a pipsqueak coffee company to whine about the coming increases in the cost of cups, lids, and stirrers.

Our Founding Fathers—or “Founding Leaders” as silly anchors on MSNBC refer to them—would roll over in their graves at the opinion makers and governmental leaders who literally are cheerleaders for the United States to fail, as long as they can smear Donald Trump in the process. People who cannot even find Greenland on a map are “standing with our Greenlandic brothers” in opposing Trump…and waving maple leaf flags in support of Canada, an odd landmass best known for Molson’s Beer and Tim Horton’s Donut Shoppes. (Don’t believe me? Fly to Toronto and check out the great Canadian magazines like TIME or Newsweek, or the popular Canadian chewing gum brands like Juicy Fruit, Big Red and Wrigley’s Spearmint. Not exactly a real independent country, eh?)

If we had honest, functioning media outlets in America we’d be hearing more from business leaders like Nate Morris, chairman of Republic Financial: “As someone who was raised by a proud autoworker - thank you President Trump for putting AMERICAN workers first again!” Or Becky Rasdall Vargas, Senior Vice President at the International Dairy Foods Association: “The U.S. dairy industry exports more than $8 billion of high-quality dairy products every year to approximately 145 countries around the world. IDFA supports the Trump Administration’s efforts to hold trading partners accountable and expand market access for U.S. dairy.”

The old adage goes: “The Queen Mary ocean liner can’t turn on a dime.” Neither can the American economy, which has been battered and bruised by shortsighted politicians and business leaders who were asleep at the switch while foreign nations ripped off the United States. However, we now have a new captain at the helm, and whiners and naysayers notwithstanding…our nation will be turned around and sail into a bright future.

As U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson declared: “President Trump is sending a clear message with Liberation Day: America will not be exploited by unfair trade practices anymore. These tariffs restore fair and reciprocal trade and level the playing field for American workers and innovators. The President understands that FREE trade ONLY works when it’s FAIR!”

X22, And we Know, and more- April 4

LILLEY UNLEASHED: Carney’s bad habit of not telling the truth

As Sun political columnist Brian Lilley catches Liberal leader Mark Carney lying, he asks how can we trust him with more significant matters.

"You Won’t Believe What’s Happening in Europe Right Now... | Victor Davis Hanson

For decades, America’s billionaire class has been firmly aligned with the Democratic Party.

So why are key figures like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg breaking ranks?

Victor Davis Hanson dives into the growing tension between the left and the oligarchs they once controlled. From Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post refusing to endorse a candidate to Democratic megadonors demanding total loyalty, the game has changed.

Trump’s populist appeal is reshaping billionaire allegiances—offering protection from global wealth confiscation and a new vision of economic nationalism. 🚨 Is the Democratic Party losing its grip on big money? And what does this mean for 2024?

All the Ukrainian Known Knowns ~ VDH

posted by Victor Davis Hanson at Townhall

Aside from the rhetoric, there is a growing consensus among Western diplomats, military analysts, military officers, heads of state, and even much of the media about how to end the endless Ukrainian war.

A proposed peace will see a DMZ established somewhere along an adjusted 1,200-mile Ukraine-Russia border. Tough negotiations will adjudicate how far east toward its original borders Russian forces will be leveraged to backstep.

Publicly in the U.S. and covertly in Europe, all accept that a depleted Ukraine will not have the military strength to retake Crimea and the Donbas.

In 2014, both were absorbed by Russia during the Obama administration. Neither that administration nor any since has advocated a military effort to reclaim them.

Loudly, the U.S. -- and again quietly Europe -- concedes that Ukraine will not be in NATO -- a confirmation that Russia will use to justify to its people its disastrous invasion, and even many Ukrainians will accept.

How will the West deter Russian leader Vladimir Putin from his inevitable agenda of reclaiming lost Soviet territory and Russian-speaking peoples? For now, his army is exhausted, its arsenals depleted, and its reputation shattered.

In the future, a commercial corridor, anchored by concessions to American and international mining concerns, will supposedly serve as a tripwire to deter Putin from attacking in-the-way noncombatant Americans.

More practically, Ukrainian forces will be kept fully armed. They have already inflicted perhaps a million casualties on Putin's forces -- possibly five times the dead, wounded, and missing that the Russians lost to the Taliban over that entire decade-long misadventure in Afghanistan.

If Trump can coax even a ceasefire, the oddly bellicose left will still rail about "Munich" and Trump as "Putin's puppet."

But after perhaps 1.5 million total Ukrainian and Russian dead, wounded, sick, and missing, transatlantic leftists will quietly admit they never had any realistic plan to win by fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

And they certainly were not willing -- despite what they claimed in their spasms of braggadocio -- to send U.S., U.K., European, or NATO ground troops into Eastern Ukraine.

Trump has faced criticism for his volatile, art-of-the-deal approach to Ukrainian diplomacy over the last 10 weeks.

Lost in such criticism is that the Biden administration did not even try to end the war. Instead, in the LBJ-style of "light at the end of the tunnel," it parroted the great "spring offensive" to come. And when that gambit disastrously failed, it resorted to the banal blank check of "as long as it takes."

Western leaders simplistically thought that sending more arms, money, and Ukrainians into the cauldron would eventually break Russia -- 30 times larger than Ukraine, 10 times richer, over four times more populous, and far less bothered by the mounting toll of its greater losses.

In addition, we even know the likely course of negotiations to end the slaughter.

As soon as Trump pressures Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a ceasefire and a rare minerals mining concession, Putin smells an advantage. So, he digs in and orders his generals to double down on terror strikes for advantage.

And then, once Trump sees that scolding Zelenskyy empowers Putin to back off from a ceasefire, he turns on Putin and puts far greater pressure on him: a secondary embargo on all who buy Russian oil that even the "on to Moscow" crowd had never envisioned.

Once Putin seems to agree, then Zelenskyy thinks he was had and wants a better mining deal or reconsideration of NATO or more sophisticated weapons -- until Trump reminds him that the despised U.S., not his beloved Europeans, is his only route to a shaky peace.

So, we know the negotiations will have a yin and yang until there is no solution other than a ceasefire leading to a Korean-peninsula-like hot peace.

Putin always preferred to exploit the Obamas and Bidens of the world. And he did so in 2014 and 2022, rather than the mercurial, unpredictable, and ultimately dangerous Trump, during whose tenure he stayed put within his borders.

He also knows that for all the talk of his puppet Trump, the latter killed hundreds of the Wagner group, pulled out of an asymmetrical missile deal, first sent offensive weapons to Ukraine, sanctioned Russian oil and oligarchs, warned the Germans not to deal with Putin on the Nord Stream II pipeline, and bombed into extinction ISIS of Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Qasem Soleimani.

So, Putin knows that India, China, and others who buy his oil will not if he reneges on his willingness for a ceasefire.

If and when peace comes, we can already foresee the misinformation that will follow: Trump deserves no credit. Zelenskyy remains the true hero. A now hollowed-out Russia was the real winner.

The only mystery?

Since when did the anti-war left prefer an endless and horrific war to a difficult, messy peace?

War Is Hell

posted by J.B. Shurk at American Thinker

War is an “unpleasant business.” That two-word euphemism reflects the divergent experiences of two separate groups: those who profit from violence and those who experience violence firsthand. For anyone in the latter group, war is hell. That’s how Civil War general William Tecumseh Sherman described it, and he was an expert in the subject. He set everything ablaze on his marches through the South. Scorched-earth conquests are meant to break the spirit of opposing soldiers and civilians alike, and Sherman broke everything in his sight.

Sherman’s effectiveness in demoralizing Southerners influenced military minds around the world and shifted military war planning toward tactics that would define the “total wars” to come. Psychological warfare, industrial sabotage, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and even the targeting of noncombatants became standard practices of war in the twentieth century. The First Great War introduced the terrors of trench warfare, mustard gas, mechanized weaponry, and widespread use of explosives that left many survivors permanently “shell-shocked.” Civilians faced their own horrors as the slaughter of livestock and ruination of farmland spawned famine and disease.

When hostilities officially ended on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, nations around the world marked the cessation of atrocities with annual observances on November 11, known as Armistice Day or Remembrance Day. For years, people not only took time to remember those who had died during the Great War, but also took time to remember the terrifying carnage. Because the violence and death of WWI were so horrendous, survivors wanted to make sure future generations would never walk down the same terrible path.

The unthinkable could be avoided only if people thought about the horrors of war; the indescribable could be prevented only by describing the evils of war in detail. In the United States, successive presidents issued annual proclamations reminding Americans of everything that had been lost during the Great War, and in May of 1938, Congress made November 11 an official holiday. In the statutory text, lawmakers designated Armistice Day as “a day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace.” World War II was in full swing sixteen months later.

After a second global conflict that mass-produced death on a scale never before seen — including through the firebombing of entire cities and the annihilative power of nuclear weapons — a kind of nihilism ate away at the souls of survivors. In the United States, Armistice Day was eventually replaced with Veterans’ Day — a wonderful occasion to remember the sacrifices of all service members, but an inversion of Armistice Day’s original intent nonetheless. Rather than reminding survivors of the horrors of war and dedicating Americans’ efforts toward “the cause of world peace,” Veterans’ Day proffers a patriotic message that subtly encourages the uninitiated to march off to war, too.

Eighty years after WWII and over a century since the conclusion of a conflict so savage and awful that witnesses simply called it the “Great War” out of an expectation that there could never possibly be another so vile, we sit on the precipice of a third world war that will eclipse the twentieth century’s mass slaughter. Some military historians believe that war has already begun. They have plenty of evidence: the Hamas terror attacks on Israeli civilians, Israel’s defensive response in Gaza and the broader region, Iran’s nuclear brinkmanship and proxy wars throughout the Middle East, the fall of Bashar Assad’s Syria and the ongoing Christian genocide, the Russia-Ukraine War, civil wars raging in parts of Africa and Asia, rebellions brewing in parts of Europe, North Korea’s saber-rattling, China’s advanced preparations for seizing Taiwan, and the hybrid warfare now common between the Chinese Communist Party and the United States.

Some forty countries are today in a state of armed conflict. Many other countries, such as China and the United States, are directly funding or arming sides in those conflicts. With fewer than two hundred sovereign nations in the world, that means somewhere between twenty and twenty-five percent of the planet is already fighting. We are one Franz Ferdinand assassination away — one flick of the infernal lighter — from global conflagration and a level of bloodshed never witnessed by anyone alive today. One military miscalculation, one technical snafu, one errant drone, one stupid provocation, or one unmeasured response could send the world spiraling toward chaos.

We have not sufficiently remembered the last two global wars, and because we have forgotten that war is hell, we are galloping toward the Devil’s gates too fast to heed Dante’s eternal warning atop Inferno’s entrance: “Abandon every hope, who enter here.”

What makes this moment in history particularly dangerous is that so many weak and unserious global “leaders” seem to believe that foreign wars will save them from domestic problems. For nearly a century, Canada and Western Europe have depended upon the United States to provide for their actual defense. During that time, they have declared “war” on all the wrong things: “global warming,” “hate speech,” secure borders, patriotism, dissent, Western civilization. They’ve gotten really good at fighting ideas. They punish citizens who reject man-made “climate change” for the “crime” of “denying Science.” They jail citizens who object to mass immigration for engaging in “illegal speech.” They censor political dissent. The United Kingdom is excellent at imprisoning Christians who silently pray. Western governments love waging “war” on their own peoples, and persecuting unarmed civilians has apparently convinced some of these tyrants that they would excel at the real thing. Or at least they believe that it makes sense to send unhappy citizens off to foreign battlefields before those citizens decide to overthrow oppressive governments at home.

The U.K.’s Keir Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron talk of war with Russia like prep school boys who got beat up at recess and now want to prove their toughness to the world. Germany is openly calling for the return of mass conscription. Glossy magazine covers picturing young Germans wearing combat uniforms implore teenagers to fight for “New Germany.” What is “New Germany”? It’s a “woke” world of “political correctness,” censorship, and Christian persecution, where socially conscious soldiers are expected to take up arms “to defend diversity.” Forget fighting for freedom, free speech, patriotism, or any other antiquated “obsession” of the “fringe far-right.” “Climate change” warriors who despise their own countrymen for being “systemically racist” are now the very model of a modern major-general!

Unserious people start wars, and unserious leaders end nations. Europe is filled with an unhealthy supply of both.

While European politicians inch closer to waging war directly with Russia over Ukraine’s thirty-year-old borders, perhaps it’s worth remembering who Ukraine’s leaders are. A former adviser to holdover-president Volodymyr Zelensky says Ukraine has a secret last-ditch doomsday plan that involves blowing up all of their nuclear power plants in an act of self-destruction that would make the Chernobyl disaster look minuscule by comparison. Calling Zelensky and his senior staff “a group of deranged people,” the whistleblower explains the suicidal rationale as “we all bite the dust, but so will they.” European governments wish to conscript boys and girls and send them off to war to defend Ukrainian madmen who would scorch their own country — and irradiate much of the continent.

If nobody lives, no problem! In an effort to mitigate Ukraine’s demographic death spiral after sacrificing the country’s healthy, young men, business leaders want to relocate more than eight million migrants from Africa and Asia to provide cheap labor for all the post-war rebuilding. That’s nearly twenty percent of Ukraine’s population. As Raheem Kassam warned last year, Ukraine will soon be Europe’s “first African nation.” Now, that’s a model Germany, France, and the U.K. would love to follow!

Western globalists seem to enjoy the “unpleasant business” of war. They won’t find hell so satisfying.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Welcome to

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature,

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of.

No politics or divisive posts on this thread.

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time.

The Midterms Are Coming. Here's Why We Need to Keep Every Seat and Gain More - and How We Do It.

We've all been having a lot of fun following the triumphs of the second Trump presidency. All of us to the right of the Democratic Party, which right now would appear to be about 80 percent of the country if polling is any indicator, are watching as the Trump administration proceeds doggedly on the path set for it by President Trump, and by the voters who put him back in the Oval Office by a comfortable, mandate-indicating margin.

It sure seems like Donald Trump has been back in office for a long time, doesn't it? But it hasn't yet been 90 days, much less the classic first 100 days. But there's a catch - there's always a catch. While the president has been doing all he can do with the executive branch alone, any long-term changes will require legislation. That requires Congress to act. And that means we need a GOP majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Right now, the GOP margin in the House is thin - 220 Republicans, 213 Democrats, with 2 vacancies, both (sadly) resulting from deaths - but in Democrat-held districts. That margin has gotten thinner as several House members have taken Trump administration gigs, and some House Republicans are thinking of seeking other offices.

The midterms are only 19 months away. That can be an eternity in politics, but it can also shoot by very quickly. The time to start thinking about keeping the House and Senate in Republican hands is now.

There are already a few key seats that we will have to fight to keep.

Republicans are most concerned about three House members eyeing statewide office:
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) is considering running for New York governor. Trump lost Lawler's district by a percentage point in November, while Lawler won by six points.
Rep. John James (R-Mich.) is weighing a run for Michigan governor. Trump won James' district by a percentage point in 2020 and six points in 2024. James won his race by six points.
Andy Barr (R-Ky.) may launch a bid to replace retiring former Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell. Trump won Barr's district by 15 points in November, and Barr won by 26. But Democrats hold a registration edge and Barr survived a competitive contest in 2018.

If the GOP were to lose those three seats - fates forfend - and the two vacancies go back to Democrats - that alone would erase the Republican majority. And right here, in Alaska, our new GOP at-large Representative Nick Begich III is expected to find himself facing another tough race in 2026. Anchorage and Juneau Democrats, no doubt fueled by tons of money from Outside, will surely target that seat, which was held by Democrat Mary Peltola before Nick's 2024 victory.

The GOP majority is too thin. There's too great a risk of losing it. We can't allow that to happen. We can't afford to make President Trump an ineffective lame duck for the last two years of his presidency, and we can't afford another hateful Democrat-run Impeach-A-Palooza to hamstring President Trump even more.

There are times when party trumps person. We may well be in the position of voting for a Republican, some of whose positions we dislike. Trust me, as an Alaskan, I know what that's like. But these midterms may well be the most crucial midterm elections in the history of the republic, and the opposition is going to try every dirty trick in the book to wrest away control of the House and Senate - and as we all know, the Democrats have a big, dirty book of dirty tricks.

Having the majority brings a lot with it. The majority party decides who chairs which committee, and which legislation moves to a vote. A party in the majority has a lot of clout that the minority just doesn't have. Democrats, we should note, are good at one thing: When they have power, they use it. We can't afford to let them have that power. We can't afford to let them block what we're trying to do. We can't afford to let them block the legislative actions that may be pulling our nation back from the brink of ruin; we need only look back to before 71 days ago to see what that would look like.

Our people already in office need to start thinking ahead as well.

NRCC spokesperson Will Kiley told Axios: "If a member decides to retire or run for another office, we simply ask for a heads up so we can ensure there's a strong candidate in place to defend the seat and build on our momentum to expand our Republican majority."

It's human nature for the enterprising to seek to move up. And we are the party of the enterprising. Current Republicans in the House and Senate, however, need to start thinking strategically. They are supposed to be in office to do what's right by the people of the United States, and in many of these races, that means staying put and using the big lever of incumbency to make sure that seat stays in Republican hands.

This will also require some tough decisions. Only last week, Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY), at President Trump's request, withdrew from consideration to be the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. She would have been good at that job, but the president noted that we need her in the House, and Representative Stefanik clearly agreed. She did the right thing for the country, and we should all take a lesson from that.

We voters need to do our part, too. In some races, that means sucking it up and voting for a Republican who isn't all we'd like, because it's better than a Democrat. It's better to have a Republican that agrees with us 60 percent of the time than a Democrat who agrees with us 10 percent of the time - if that. It's better to have a seat marked "R" than "D," if it helps us keep the majority. It's better to have a Republican Speaker than a Democrat one. It's better to have a Republican Senate Majority leader and a Democrat Senate Minority leader than it is the other way around.

As in any election, in the 2026 midterms, turnout will be key. Yes, it's 19 months away, but we must remind ourselves, every day between now and then, how important this is. Every time we clap our hands over another MAGA victory, remember the midterms. Every time we see President Trump chalk up another win, remember the midterms. Every time the Republican Congress sends President Trump a bill that furthers the goal of making America great again, remember the midterms. And on that day, vote. If you can vote early, do so, and get that vote banked. If not, vote on Election Day. If you have to drive forty miles to vote, drive it. If you have to walk five miles to vote, walk it. If you have to crawl on your hands and knees for six blocks to vote, crawl it. If you have friends and relatives who are voting Republican, make sure they vote. Drive them to the polling place. Walk them in. Make sure they vote. If you have friends and relatives who are voting Democrat, well, leave them alone.

We need every vote. We need every seat. We need every representative and every senator we can get. We need to not only keep the majority but to expand it. We have to vote. Vote as though the future of our republic depends on it - because it does.

3 Ways China Could Strike Taiwan And What It Means For The U.S.

China has basically three ways to go at Taiwan:

a patient choke, a lightning grab, or full chaos.

by Chuck DeVore for The Federalist

On March 4, in response to President Donald J. Trump’s strategy of using tariffs to bring manufacturing back America and restore fair trade, the Chinese embassy ominously warned that China was ready for any “type of war” with the U.S.

Should war with China extend beyond tariffs, Taiwan is a likely battleground.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wants to take Taiwan. Seizing Taiwan is integral to CCP’s objective of dominating the world.

Taiwan isn’t just an island — it’s a geopolitical tripwire, a small, highly-prized self-ruled island of 23 million with a prominent stone spine. Strategically, it anchors the First Island Chain, a natural barricade from Japan to the Philippines that keeps China’s Pacific dreams in a bottle. For Beijing, cracking Taiwan open means breaking free into blue water and dominating Asia’s rim.

For the U.S., letting it slip is a gut punch. China’s reach would stretch to Guam, and America’s Pacific shield would splinter. Further, its semiconductor plants, led by TSMC, pump out 90 percent of the world’s advanced chips, powering everything from smartphones to stealth fighters. Lose that, and the global economy chokes.

That’s why Taiwan is the hinge of any Chinese move in the South China Sea.

If taking Taiwan is one of China’s end goals, what might be the strategy to achieve those ends — strategy being the combination of ends, ways — or courses of action and means?

In recent months, China has been conducting large-scale exercises around Taiwan. In February, Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, said these drills are “not exercises; they are rehearsals” for forced reunification of Taiwan with communist China.

China has three basic ways to grab Taiwan: a slow naval stranglehold, a lightning strike on Taipei, or a wild global attack that might even employ Mexican cartels. Each carries its own logic, risks, and U.S. counterpunch. To unpack them, we’ll lean on three strategic titans: Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and Carl von Clausewitz, whose ideas still speak to today’s contests.

The Stakes: Why Taiwan is the Hinge

Before diving into China’s options, let’s set the table. Taiwan’s not just a tech hub. It’s the tech hub. TSMC’s chips are the lifeblood of modern life, and a Chinese takeover would hand Beijing a chokehold on the world’s supply chain. Trillions of dollars are at risk.

Then there’s geography. Taiwan sits like a cork in China’s Pacific bottle, part of the First Island Chain that hems in Beijing’s 370-ship navy. If China pops that cork, its fleets roam free, more readily threatening Japan, the Philippines, and beyond. For the U.S., it’s a linchpin. Lose it, and the Pacific turns into China’s playground. Beijing’s ambitions are clear and openly stated: “reunification” by any means. The U.S.-led alliance — with Japan’s destroyers, Philippine bases, Australia’s grit, and America’s 11 carrier strike groups — stands in the way.

It would go one of three ways. Let’s break them down one by one.

Scenario 1: Blockade — Strangling Slow and Steady

Picture this: China’s navy rings Taiwan like a steel noose, turning the Taiwan Strait into a kill zone. Of course, 90 percent of Taiwan’s food and all its natural gas come by ship. Snip that lifeline, and the island starves in months. No invasion, no blood-soaked beaches, just a slow strangulation. This is American naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan’s gospel: Sea power rules the world. Mahan, the prophet of naval supremacy, argued that whoever controls the waves controls the world. China’s fleet, now outnumbering America’s 290 ships, could flex that muscle, squeezing Taiwan’s economy and daring the U.S. to blink. But it’s not a slam dunk.

Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian master of war, would label this as attrition warfare — grind the enemy down, break their spirit over time. But time’s a double-edged sword. Taiwan might be tough; it might hold out longer than Beijing expects. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy with 11 carriers, attack subs, and a pack of allies, could steam in and turn the blockade into a shooting gallery. Japan’s 40 destroyers and Philippine airfields would join the fray, making it a Pacific cage match. China’s betting on patience, but the clock could tick against it.

Halford Mackinder’s lens sharpens the view. He saw the world as a clash between the Eurasian “Heartland” and the coastal “Rimland.” Taiwan’s a Rimland jewel — control it, and you dominate Asia’s edge. A blockade tests that theory, pressuring the Rimland to unite and push back with Japan, India, the Philippines, Vietnam, and others joining in, flipping China’s squeeze into a conflict it can’t win.

As for the U.S. response, it will likely be led by Admiral Paparo, of whom Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on March 28 while visiting the Philippines, a longstanding American ally, “It’s not my job to determine where the Seventh Fleet goes. I defer to Admiral Paparo and his war plans. Real war plans. Admiral Paparo understands the situation …” and is prepared to posture and create, “… dynamics and strategic dilemmas for the Communist Chinese that help them reconsider whether or not violence or action is something they want to undertake.”

So, how might Adm. Paparo use the forces at his command to counter a blockade? He’ll punch through with naval might and air power. Carrier strike groups backed by submarines and Air Force bombers, to shred the blockade. Cyber ops would blind China’s sensors, while sanctions hammer its energy imports. China’s a gas guzzler, and 70 percent of its oil sails through vulnerable straits (though it has been working to make itself immune via a massive strategic oil reserve and electrification of transportation). Freedom of navigation ops would dare Beijing to escalate.

For China, the blockade offers low body count and high leverage, testing U.S. resolve without a Pearl Harbor trigger. But time favors the U.S. alliance, Taiwan might dig in, and global backlash could isolate Beijing. America’s edge lies in naval dominance and alliance strength, avoiding a land war in Asia while rallying the world economy behind it. Still, ship losses to China’s missile swarms and a drawn-out standoff could erode public will.

Scenario 2: Surprise — Taipei Before Breakfast

Now imagine this: Chinese missiles rain on Taiwan’s defenses, hackers crash its grid, and 100,000 troops hit the beaches — all before the U.S. wakes up. The goal? Seize Taipei in days and present the world with a done deal.

This is Clausewitz’s sweet spot: Decisive action, maximum force, crush the enemy’s will in one blow. War, he said, is politics with guns, and China’s political prize is Taiwan’s flag under Beijing’s boot. A blitz could deliver it fast. Mahan would love the payoff. Taking Taiwan shatters the First Island Chain, handing China the Pacific’s sea lanes. Those semiconductor plants? A trillion-dollar bonus. But Mahan knew sea power needs endurance. China’s 370 ships must fend off America’s 290, plus Japan’s fleet, in a knock-down, drag-out fight. Speed is the key; if the blitz stalls, it’s a quagmire.

Mackinder’s Rimland lens fits here too. Taiwan’s fall tightens China’s coastal grip, spooking Japan and the Philippines into submission. But it’s a gamble — push too hard, and the Rimland fights back. India, Australia, even South Korea might jump in, turning Asia’s edge into a hornet’s nest. The U.S. hits back hard and fast. U.S. bombers pre-positioned in Japan and Guam and submarines prowling the depths target People’s Liberation Army (PLA) supply lines — cut the umbilical, and the invasion starves. Cyber strikes cripple Chinese command, while arms flood into Taiwan. The aim: bog China down, then counterattack with overwhelming air and naval power.

For China, speed and shock could clinch it, leaving the U.S. scrambling and boosting Xi’s domestic standing. But Taiwan’s terrain favors defenders, and failure means global pariah status and a wrecked military. The U.S. gains by defending a democratic ally, flexing air and sea muscle, and reinforcing Pacific credibility. Still, America needs split-second coordination across allies, and if China digs in, it’s a brutal, bloody slog.

Scenario 3: Everything, Everywhere, All at Once

Here’s the wild card: China goes big. Missile barrages on Taiwan, U.S. bases in Japan, Guam, and the Philippines then throws a curveball. Beijing’s 20,000+ men of military age smuggled in under President Joe Biden, along with Mexican cartels, unleash hell on America’s infrastructure and border: attacks on power grids, shootouts at border crossings, smuggled saboteurs in Texas. It’s 1917’s Zimmermann Telegram redux — Imperial Germany tried to sic Mexico on the U.S. to distract from World War I — even sending military advisors to Mexico. Britain cracked the code, and America declared war on Germany.

This time, the stakes are higher. Clausewitz would recognize it as total war. Strike everywhere, confuse the enemy and attack his will to resist. But Clausewitz also warned of “friction” — war’s messy unpredictability. Cartels aren’t disciplined mercenaries. They might take China’s money and wreak havoc, or they might botch it. As for the Chinese nationals in the U.S., legal and illegal, have largely unknown capabilities and intentions. In both cases, if U.S. intel catches wind, China’s exposed, and the effort fizzles.

Mahan would roll his eyes. Fleets, not illegal aliens and felons, win wars. This land-based distraction dilutes China’s naval focus, risking a disaster in the Pacific. Mackinder, though, might see the genius. By tying Uncle Sam’s hands at home, China weakens Rimland cohesion. But Mackinder knew overreach invites ruin. Stirring Mexico could rouse a sleeping giant, just like 1917. The U.S. goes full throttle: Pacific strikes on PLA bases, National Guard to the border, sanctions that crush China’s economy. Cyber defenses lock down, and NATO might even flex. The goal: punish China globally while smothering the chaos.

For China, unleashing unrestricted warfare splits U.S. attention, buys invasion time, and tests alliance resolve. But it’s a high-risk gamble, especially if caught before launch. Further, the U.S. may gain by rallying worldwide outrage, reinforcing global leadership, and punishing China economically.

The Bottom Line: Vigilance or Bust

China’s got three ways to go at Taiwan: a patient choke, a lightning grab, or full chaos. Each taps aspects of Mahan’s sea power, Clausewitz’s decisive blows, and Mackinder’s Rimland chess. The U.S. counter stays rock-solid — naval might, alliance muscle, rapid punches.

America’s edge lies in vigilance, allies, and the will to slug it out if needed. China’s gamble? Picking the right play and hoping friction doesn’t lead to ruination.

All the Ukrainian Known Knowns

A Ukraine-Russia ceasefire looms, with Trump pushing deals, Zelenskyy negotiating leverage, and Putin weighing risks—while the West quietly concedes it never had a real plan to win.

Publicly in the U.S. and covertly in Europe, all accept that a depleted Ukraine will not have the military strength to retake Crimea and the Donbas.

In 2014, both were absorbed by Russia during the Obama administration. Neither that administration nor any since has advocated a military effort to reclaim them.

Loudly, the U.S.—and again quietly Europe—concedes that Ukraine will not be in NATO—a confirmation that Russia will use to justify to its people its disastrous invasion, and even many Ukrainians will accept.

How will the West deter Putin from his inevitable agenda of reclaiming lost Soviet territory and Russian-speaking peoples? For now, his army is exhausted, its arsenals depleted, and its reputation shattered.

More practically, Ukrainian forces will be kept fully armed. They have already inflicted perhaps a million causalities on Putin’s forces—possibly five times the dead, wounded, and missing that the Russians lost to the Taliban over that entire decade-long misadventure in Afghanistan.

If Trump can coax even a ceasefire, the oddly bellicose left will still rail about “Munich” and Trump as “Putin’s puppet.”

And they certainly were not willing—despite what they claimed in their spasms of braggadocio—to send U.S., U.K., European, or NATO ground troops into Eastern Ukraine.

Trump has faced criticism for his volatile, art-of-the-deal approach to Ukrainian diplomacy over the last 10 weeks.

Lost in such criticism is that the Biden administration did not even try to end the war. Instead, in the LBJ-style of “light at the end of the tunnel,” it parroted the great “spring offensive” to come. And when that gambit disastrously failed, it resorted to the banal blank check of “as long as it takes.”

Western leaders simplistically thought that sending more arms, money, and Ukrainians into the cauldron would eventually break Russia—30 times larger than Ukraine, 10 times richer, over four times more populous, and far less bothered by the mounting toll of its greater losses.

In addition, we even know the likely course of negotiations to end the slaughter.

As soon as Trump pressures Zelenskyy for a ceasefire and a rare minerals mining concession, Putin smells an advantage. So, he digs in and orders his generals to double down on terror strikes for advantage.

And then, once Trump sees that scolding Zelensky empowers Putin to back off from a ceasefire, he turns on Putin and puts far greater pressure on him: a secondary embargo on all who buy Russian oil that even the “on to Moscow” crowd had never envisioned.

Once Putin seems to agree, then Zelenskyy thinks he was had and wants a better mining deal or reconsideration of NATO or more sophisticated weapons—until Trump reminds him that the despised U.S., not his beloved Europeans, is his only route to a shaky peace.

So, we know the negotiations will have a yin and yang until there is no solution other than a ceasefire leading to a Korean-peninsula-like hot peace.

So, Putin knows that India, China, and others who buy his oil will not if he reneges on his willingness for a ceasefire.

If and when peace comes, we can already foresee the misinformation that will follow: Trump deserves no credit. Zelenskyy remains the true hero. A now hollowed-out Russia was the real winner.

The only mystery?

Since when did the anti-war left prefer an endless and horrific war to a difficult, messy peace?

https://amgreatness.com/2025/04/03/all-the-ukrainian-known-knowns/