Dear Reader,
The New York Times informs us that Sleepy Joe may be toying with doomsday:
- Several officials… suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent.
An instant and enormous deterrent to Mr. Putin, that is.
Would it be? I hazard it would frustrate him. Yet would it send him scurrying?
I am not convinced it would. The Russian strongman has planted his flag atop the Ukrainian hill.
And I believe we would die upon it before picking up his flag… and walking away… his head hanging.
I believe he would instead dare Ukraine to “go nuclear” — and take the consequences if it did.
The United States would likely take the identical consequences for handing Ukraine the doomsday machine.
Superficially sober men inform us the risk is acceptable. That is because Mr. Putin is the living reincarnation of Herr Hitler.
His vast appetite lacks all limits, we are told.
If he gobbles Ukraine today, half of Europe goes upon the menu tomorrow… and the remaining half the day after.
Is Putin truly Hitler?
Below, I host a debate between a mainstream spokesman — who denounces Vladimir Putin in the most vicious terms — and Advocatus Diaboli, the devil’s advocate, who speaks on Mr. Putin’s behalf.
Who won the debate? Decide for yourself.
Mainstream Spokesman: Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was a severe breach of international law and a crime against humanity. It’s indefensible. The man is a ruthless thug who must be stopped. Now.
Advocatus Diaboli: It is true — the fellow is a ruthless thug — and plenty more. I can assure you The Boss has space set aside for him once he pays his debt to nature. He has a reservation, so to speak.
Yet I would caution you Americans about invoking international law, so-called. Your observance of international law can be rather… selective.
Under which international law did your United States invade Panama in 1989 or Iraq in 2003? Under which international law did you oust Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 2011?
Or, for the matter of that, under which international law does the United States presently occupy parts of the sovereign nation of Syria?
Where was your invitation?
Mainstream Spokesman: That’s ridiculous. These were evil regimes that killed their own people and threatened their neighbors. They were the bad guys. We liberate oppressed peoples. We’re the good guys.
Advocatus Diaboli: Let us assume — arguendo — that you are the good guys. And compared with the Saddam Husseins of your world, I’ll grant that you are the good guys. Incidentally, it shouldn’t surprise you that Saddam and The Boss get along quite well. It’s more like Heaven than Hell for him.
Anyway, it strikes me as rather hypocritical that you cite international law only when it suits you. I’d rather you simply admit that you are willing to flout international law when freedom and democracy and the rest of it are on the line. Your commitment to freedom and democracy doesn’t seem very strong to me, but at least it would sound better.
And do you realize that under international law, you become a co-belligerent in the war by arming Ukraine. I have to say, the “madman” Putin has shown great restraint by not retaliating.
And the United States probably blew up Russia’s energy pipeline to Germany. That’s an act of war, buster. And still Putin did nothing.
Mainstream Spokesman: Oh, please. Don’t compare our attempts to spread freedom and democracy to Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. Putin hates democracy, as all dictators do. As the world’s leading democracy, we must support democratic values. The Ukrainians want democracy. They also want to join NATO and the EU. Russia has no right to stop them.
Advocatus Diaboli: I understand what you’re saying. But I would remind you that this Ukrainian democracy of yours isn’t especially democratic.
Did you know that its President Zelenskyy, now so bravely defying Russian authoritarianism, canceled elections this year. Heck, even during the Civil War your Abe Lincoln allowed for elections.
Is this your idea of democracy? That strikes me as rather Putin-esque, to be frank.
Mainstream Spokesman: Don’t get cute with me. You can’t compare Zelenskyy to Putin. This is wartime and sometimes you have to take drastic actions that you never would in peacetime. You cite Lincoln. Lincoln violated the Constitution during the Civil War out of necessity. He was fighting a war, for heaven’s sake. So is Zelenskyy.
Advocatus Diaboli: I see. So you must subvert democracy in order to defend democracy.
Mainstream Spokesman: Sometimes, yes. That’s just reality. Get over it.
Advocatus Diaboli: You say Putin is Hitler. If he’s allowed to absorb Ukraine, in no time flat he’ll be absorbing Poland, the Baltic nations and ultimately London. Do I have that about right?
Mainstream Spokesman: That’s exactly correct. He won’t stop with Ukraine. You’re a fool if you think he will.
Advocatus Diaboli: Hmmm. That sounds a lot like the famous domino theory that got you into Vietnam. How did that work out for you? But I’ll let that go. Let me ask you this: Are you willing to fight for Ukrainian freedom and democracy?
Mainstream Spokesman: We will do everything we can to help Ukraine defeat the Soviet — sorry — the Russian invasion. But we don’t want to intervene militarily. We’re just giving Ukraine the weapons it needs to defeat this barbarous Russian invasion.
Advocatus Diaboli: I see you wish to bring Ukraine into NATO. But recall Article 5 of the NATO Charter. It says an attack on one constitutes an attack on all. All members must rush to the defense of the besieged.
Let’s assume Putin gets bored one day and next invades, say, Poland, a NATO member. Why he would want Poland I have no idea, but whatever. That would mean NATO — the United States, essentially — must defend Poland.
And then you might have your dreaded nuclear war. Does this make sense?
Let me ask you this: If you’re not willing to directly fight for Ukraine’s independence today, why would you be willing to directly fight for Poland’s independence tomorrow — and risk nuclear war with Russia?
Mainstream Spokesman: It’s called deterrence. Collective defense is meant to deter aggression. That was the idea behind Woodrow Wilson’s proposed League of Nations. Bringing Russia’s neighbors into NATO deters Russia because Putin doesn’t want to risk a larger war with us.
Advocatus Diaboli: There appears to be some sound logic in your argument. But are you willing to tie your security — and perhaps your very survival — to the decisions of people thousands of miles away, often driven by ancient hatreds? You become a sort of hostage to fortune.
Your Founding Fathers warned against becoming involved in so-called entangling alliances. What is NATO but an entangling alliance?
And what if your lovely deterrence fails? You did not think Russia would invade Ukraine in the first place. Yet it did. Who’s to say deterrence fails again next time?
Have you thought this through?
Mainstream Spokesman: Look, the world is a safer place with an expanded NATO, with Ukraine in it. Collective security is a powerful deterrent against aggression.
Advocatus Diaboli: I see you mentioned Wilson. He entered World War I to make the world safe for democracy. You know what he really made the world safe for? Fascism and communism.
You know where the path of good intentions leads to, right? Well, I’ll tell you. To my neck of the woods, old boy. Old Woodrow can personally attest to that. For entertainment, The Boss is always chasing him around with a pitchfork. When he connects, Wilson yelps like you wouldn’t believe. I rather enjoy watching it, I must admit. But that’s just me.
Mainstream Spokesman: The League of Nations was a good idea. It was just that Wilson couldn’t get enough support for it. It might have stopped Hitler if it had real teeth, as we must now stop Putin.
Advocatus Diaboli: Have you considered the possibility that your own policies are at least partly responsible for Putin’s actions?
Mainstream Spokesman: Oh no, here we go — another Putin apologist. You and Trump should get together.
Advocatus Diaboli: Believe me, one day we will. But nevermind that. Just hear me out…
Putin had warned for years that Ukraine was his line in the sand, his “red line.” He would not accept Ukraine within NATO, menacing at his doorstep. In reality, no Russian leader would, even a “liberal” one. Look at a map. Parts of Ukraine are actually east of Moscow. But you people just kept poking the bear.
And you spent eight years or so arming Ukraine and training its forces. That was in direct violation of the Minsk agreements. Germany’s Angela Merkel has since admitted that NATO deliberately violated the agreements in order to give Ukraine more time to prepare for war.
Then you turn around and say Putin’s attack was unprovoked. You know the one about the pot calling the kettle black, right?
To you people, Ukraine is a sort of pet project. To Russia it is a strategic imperative. How would you like it if Russia was arming Mexico against you and invited it into a formal alliance? Not even a little, jack. Well, now that Putin has pounced, you clutch your pearls and take to the fainting couch.
HELLO! He warned you this would happen. But you didn’t listen.
Mainstream Spokesman: Why should we listen to an anti-democratic dictator? Who cares what he wants? We don’t base our foreign policy on what Vladimir Putin wants.
Advocatus Diaboli: Well, maybe you should take his security concerns into consideration. He does, after all, have nuclear weapons — and may be prepared to wield them.
Speaking of weapons, did you see that new missile that Russia sent into Ukraine last week? Man, it looked like a scene out of Armageddon. And you folks are incapable of shooting it down. Chew on that for a bit.
Besides, is a democratic, NATO-joined Ukraine more important to you than avoiding nuclear war with Russia?
Look at what your Pat Buchanan said over 20 years ago:
- By moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch, we have scheduled a 21st-century confrontation.
But it is not just the “isolationist” Pat Buchanan who warned about NATO expansion. Shall I name some names?
No, you say? But I insist. Take, for example, the famous statesman Henry Kissinger:
- To Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country… Ukraine should not join NATO.
(Incidentally, The Boss was ecstatic when he finally got his hands on the old coot last year).
Or a certain Jack F. Matlock Jr., former United States ambassador to the Soviet Union. This fellow argued that NATO expansion was:
- The most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat… since the Soviet Union collapsed.
Or radical Noam Chomsky — hardly a Putin stooge:
- The idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader [and Ukraine’s desire to join NATO] (was) not protecting Ukraine, it (was) threatening Ukraine with major war.
Or CIA Director Bill Burns:
- Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for [Russia] and I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.
Or former defense secretary Robert Gates:
- Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake… Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation.
Or Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia:
- [Pushing] Ukraine into NATO [is] stupid on every level… if you want to start a war with Russia, that’s the best way of doing it.
Mainstream Spokesman: Enough! Stop it already! You’ve made your point, even though I disagree. I stand firm in my resolution that Putin must be stopped and that Ukrainian freedom and democracy must be defended.
Our own security depends on it.
Advocatus Diaboli: Even if it means nuclear war with Russia?
Mainstream Spokesman: [Silence.]
Advocatus Diaboli: Well, it’s been fun, old sport. I hate to run, but The Boss is calling for me. But hey, I’ll see you again.
No, I really mean it — I’ll see you again.
Regards,
Brian Maher
for Freedom Financial News
P.S. Legendary investor Robert Kiyosaki believes the deep state is working against your financial interests.
But Robert wants you to fight back. He says “Don’t let the deep state steal your American Dream!”
Robert knows how you can preserve your American Dream, despite the deep state.
He’s even written books about it.
It all comes down to one unique but powerful strategy. What is it?
Go here to find out — and how it can help preserve your American Dream.
