A note to readers: Hey, everyone. I realize it has been a minute since my last post, and for that, I want to extend a quick apology. I have been trying to figure out a few things in my life, and, at the same time, contemplating on how to proceed with content here on my Substack. You can me expect me to be much more active here and I will certainly be releasing more content. In the near-future, I will be releasing a piece on George Washington’s Farewell Address and another piece in which I gather more quotes from various presidents on Robert E. Lee. For now, it’s good to be back. Cheers!

Any honest examination of Ridley Scott’s 2023 Napoleon biopic would describe the film as a multilayered character assassination of one of the greatest and most accomplished men who ever lived. Scott portrayed Napoleon as a deranged, narcissistic, and mentally unstable man and went out of his way to erase and obscure any hints of Napoleon’s genius and greatness. On top of the abundant historical inaccuracies in the film, Scott openly intimated that if there was any worthwhile quality to be found in Napoleon, it was entirely due to the influence of his wife, Josephine.  

Unfortunately for those of us who were looking forward to the film, Scott seemed determined to crush the emperor at every turn.  

Contrast this to a 2002 French miniseries titled ‘Napoleon’ that is today relatively unknown and unheard of (at least compared to the popularity of the latest film). Recently watching the series felt like a breath of fresh air in comparison and served as a much-needed palate cleanse from the abject atrociousness of Scott’s movie.  

Although the makers of this miniseries didn’t harbor the exorbitant budget that was used by Ridley Scott to create his film, Napoleon (2002) shines in many areas where Scott failed and accomplishes much of what Scott simply couldn’t, all the while never going overboard with historical inaccuracies and never overemphasizing in film the faults of Napoleon and damaging his precious image and reputation.  

Separated into four episodes, the miniseries chronicles the life of Napoleon from his time as a young, ambitious artillery officer to his death in exile on the island of Saint Helena in 1821. It encompasses about thirty years of Napoleon’s life and depicts the most significant events of his story as well as the numerous important battles that shaped and propelled him to eternal stardom.  

Major Differences

Indeed, one of the many things the miniseries capitalizes on is time management. Each of the four episodes is exactly an hour-and-a-half long, which allowed director Yves Simoneau to cover more ground historically and left much more room for character development and bonus details. On the other hand, Ridley Scott’s version smacked of a hurried, rushed highlight reel that had no real substance or detail, which was altogether unpleasant and disorienting. The fact that the series had more time to work with and made use of it is an obvious advantage.  

Many more important and consequential figures from the life of Napoleon are also extensively portrayed: Talleyrand, Murat, and Ney, to name just a few. The small-mindedness of the recent film in only focusing on Josephine was a major loss and a missed opportunity for Scott. By inserting more characters into the miniseries, Simoneau added immensely to the complexity of Napoleon’s story.  

Another advantage the series can boast is its on-screen beauty. Unlike the latest film, in which a dreary, gray color filter dominates the film, color is allowed to shine, and the beauty of the palaces, battlefields, and countryside is readily apparent. This is often reflected in the uniforms of the time period, both political and military. Remarkably detailed, the historical uniforms were free to showcase their full color, which only added to the objective beauty of the series. Napoleon (2002) is exceedingly colorful and aesthetically vibrant, boldly stating that Napoleon and the Napoleonic Era are worth celebrating.  

But the most palpable of the differences between the two adaptations is the way in which Napoleon himself is depicted.  

Played by Christian Clavier, Napoleon is bright, charismatic, and forward-thinking. He is portrayed not as deranged, but as clear and concise; he is not rash in making decisions, but calm and deliberate; he is not frightened of battle, but willing and eager to join the fray; and, most importantly, he is rightly shown to be a man of unparalleled greatness and excellence. And often, his greatness is displayed openly throughout the series.  

Numerous instances of his personal bravery and courage in battle are shown. In the first episode, Napoleon embraces the French flag in battle and carries it at the head of his troops across a hotly contested bridge in which numerous Austrian projectiles and shrapnel are whizzing in the air all about him (The Battle of Arcole, 1796). When, in a later episode, a cannonball ricochets from a tree and eliminates a soldier right beside him and violently knocks him off his horse, he quickly gets back up and carries on as if nothing had happened.  

In the last episode after he returns from Elba, he boldly faces down an assortment of French troops led by Ney sent to halt his advance, saying, “If any one among you wishes to kill his emperor, here I am.” This was a major difference from Scott’s film, where Napoleon pathetically cried and begged the troops to let him by (which was historically inaccurate).  

Napoleon’s insatiable appetite for remaking France and improving its architecture and physical beauty is discussed and shown, another aspect of Napoleon that Scott conveniently left out in his latest film. The great and significant Napoleonic Code (his greatest political achievement, a system that still exists to this day) is mentioned, alongside his numerous designs for French parks and memorials. Napoleon was utterly consumed with enhancing the beauty of France, both in the government and in society; a part of him rarely discussed, and not once in Ridley Scott’s film. (As Scott would have you believe, Napoleon was just a dumb brute who got lucky a few times on the battlefield.) 

Napoleon’s vast interest in mathematics and science as potential and different life paths is also shown. In the opening episode, when Talleyrand attempts to gauge whether the young officer has any higher political ambition, Napoleon flatly states that he wishes to become an elite mathematician. Later on, he boasts endlessly during and after the expedition to Egypt that his scientists made many important discoveries and archaeological finds, which was one of the goals set out by him in his going to Egypt. When he is forced to abdicate the throne many years later, he vocally considers traveling to America and becoming fully immersed in the world of science.  

Napoleon is also accurately portrayed as quite the ladies' man, carrying on numerous affairs and dalliances with an inordinate number of women. This is yet another noticeable deviation from Scott’s depiction. If you didn’t know much about Napoleon and watched the recent film and took it at its word, you would probably believe Napoleon to be a pathetic simp in his love life, a man who practically begged his wife to sleep with him (as is shown in the movie). Not so. As the series correctly lays out, Napoleon had his way with women, having numerous mistresses and many illegitimate children. (This is, of course, one of the many dark sides surrounding Napoleon, but it bears mentioning in order to dispose of the idea that Napoleon was somehow an obsequious simp in his dealing with the ladies.)  

Napoleon as head of the French army was also decidedly dissimilar from Scott’s version of Napoleon. Simoneau’s Napoleon, as any leader on a battlefield should be, was engaged, hyper-focused, and wielded a commanding and charismatic presence. According to Scott’s film, Napoleon seldom, if ever, overlooked a map and formulated strategy with his marshals, only now and then giving out cold hand signals and deranged looks. In the 2002 version, Clavier deliberates strategy over a map many times and creates detailed plans with his marshals based on the realities of the battlefield.  

The Series Wins

The series also wins in its ability to steer clear of exaggerated historical inaccuracies and unjust attacks on Napoleon’s historical image, two aspects that Scott didn’t care to minimize or correct. As a result, the series edges out Napoleon (2023) in that it’s far more historically complex, cinematically invigorating, and factually precise.  

But for all the positives of Napoleon (2002) it has observable shortcomings in numerous areas: cinematography, graphics, and special effects. Many scenes feel uncomfortably fake and artificial, and the series’ special effects are rather poor at times. (A good example of this is the scene depicting the royalist uprising on 13 Vendemiaire.) Other than these relatively minor faults, Napoleon (2002) stands proud as an excellent, thorough series which correctly remembered Napoleon Bonaparte as the man he was and placed him in the proper spotlight.  

Napoleon, a great and monumental figure and a man of superior genius, is a man worth celebrating and commemorating. Yes, he was a faulty man and made horrible mistakes. But those moral faults and strategic mishaps don’t define him. His greatness defined him and continues to define him. Scott committed a great disservice to society and posterity by launching petty personal attacks and leveraging historical inaccuracies in an attempt to bring the emperor down. The reason why the miniseries is objectively better is because it does the exact opposite.  

It doesn’t try to destroy Napoleon’s historical reputation. Instead, director Yves Simoneau laid Napoleon out as history has laid him out: a mortal man and leader of unmatched greatness who conquered Europe and created a political system which still governs France to this day; a man who is routinely placed alongside Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar as one of the greatest military commanders in history. Napoleon (2002), despite its shortcomings, wins because the emperor is rightly recognized and depicted as such a man.  

Instead of watching a flop with an overpriced budget made by a bitter and angry old man, you should instead watch the 2002 miniseries and save yourself some time, money, and personal agony. It is free to watch on Prime as this is written.  

On this day in 49 BC, Gaius Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Rather than surrender his command and arms to the Senate, he chose to march onward to Rome. This momentous decision commenced a civil war in the late Roman Republic and changed the course of world history forever.  

According to Roman historian Suetonius, Caesar uttered the famous words, “The die is cast,” the moment he and his army crossed the Rubicon; a phrase that essentially means “passing the point of no return.” Caesar understood perfectly well that there was no going back and that he irreversibly altered the course of history. He was Rome’s Man of Destiny, and nothing was going to stop his daring and inevitable march to glory and victory. 

Of course, we know the rest of the story. After emerging victorious in the civil war, he was declared dictator perpetuo of Rome and was assassinated shortly thereafter in 44 BC by a group of conspirators in the Senate. Rome descended into abject chaos and was never the same again.  

Caesar’s phrase “the die is cast” hits especially hard today, a time in which we find ourselves trapped in a situation that is vastly complicated and dangerous. In many ways, America has passed the point of no return. The overall situation is ridiculous and the regime that currently controls the levers of power is openly hostile to the American people, their values, beliefs, culture, and traditions.  

If history is any indicator, which it surely is, then time is becoming ripe for an American Caesar to arrive at the forefront and take this country back once and for all from the enemy forces that rule over it.

Bad times produce great men. Whether it was Caesar in Rome, Napoleon in France, or Franco in Spain, men of destiny arrive at the call of their countrymen in times of extraordinary political upheaval and chaos.  

In a time of crisis, men of destiny arise, whether we like it or not. Some of these men throughout history have done remarkable good, and some have been immensely destructive. I tend to think that Caesar was a good leader rather than a bad one. At a time when the Republic and its people needed him to step into the arena the most and save Rome from the corrupt forces that were occupying it, he chose to cross the Rubicon.

There is no denying that America is in a unique situation and is well past the point of no return, for the Rubicon has been crossed numerous times. The die is indeed cast. What is yet to be determined is whether a man similar to Caesar will step into the arena and deliver his country from the darkness.

(Author’s Note: The following piece is a review of the movie Napoleon and will naturally contain spoilers. If you want to avoid spoilers, I kindly suggest that you do not read on.)  

For obvious reasons, Ridley Scott’s Napoleon has captured the attention of the world. The thirst for excellent historical films is abundant, as few historical epics are made these days and even fewer films are made about the great men of history. Director Ridley Scott, famous for directing masterpieces like Gladiator, paired with the ever interesting and captivating historical figure Napoleon Bonaparte, is enough to make every historical movie connoisseur gush with excitement.  

The film is a historical biopic centered on the life of Napoleon Bonaparte, the greatest military commander in history and one of the most intelligent political minds to ever live. In its entirety, the film stretches to about two hours and forty minutes and attempts to cover the French Emperor’s life from the French Revolution in 1793 to his death in exile on the island of Saint Helena in 1821. (This turns out to be a major issue that plays out to the detriment of the film, as we shall shortly see.)  

Notable film actors include Joaquin Phoenix, who stars as Napoleon, and Vanessa Kirby, who portrays his wife and lover, Josephine. Additionally, the film features scenes from six battles: the Siege of Toulon (1793), Pyramids (1798), Austerlitz (1805), Borodino (1812), and finally, the Battle of Waterloo (1815).  

Critiques

To begin, the film severely lacks cohesion and harmony. Scott jumps expeditiously from event to event while establishing no grounding or continuity throughout the film. One moment you see Napoleon in Paris putting down a royalist rebellion, and the next you see him in Egypt amongst the pyramids. Scott quickly transitions from the Coup of 18 Brumaire (the coup Napoleon launched against the Directory that made him First Consul of France) to Napoleon crowning himself emperor at his coronation, which was five years afterward. Scott almost immediately shifts from the end of the battle of Austerlitz to the Treaty of Tilsit, which was two years after the battle’s end. If that was not enough jumping, Scott skips from the burning of Moscow (1812) during Napoleon’s Russia campaign to his abdication as emperor (1814).  

Scott does not do the film any favors with this hurried approach, as he skips over a multitude of notable events that took place in the years he brushed aside. For instance, in the time between Moscow’s burning in 1812 and Napoleon’s abdication in 1814, at least twenty battles took place in the span of two years. Scott completely ignores the Battle of Leipzig, one of the most important defeats of Napoleon’s career. On the other hand, the frenzied and frenetic style that Scott adopts in directing this film leaves no room for the audience to discern any major character development in any of the individuals that were portrayed. For example, how did the momentous victory of the Battle of Austerlitz affect Napoleon? How did the coronation of Napoleon as Emperor affect him and his approach? None of this is shown in the film, and these negatives are the downsides of trying to fit thirty years of Napoleon’s life into a two-and-a-half-hour movie.  

Now we get to the uglier aspects of the movie. Most frustratingly, Scott managed to turn Napoleon into a pathetic, emotional, unconfident, whiny weakling with a depressed aura who always cries out for Josephine. In Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal of Napoleon, you get the sense of a depressed, removed, and borderline mentally unstable man who is vastly different from the person you read about in the history books. Not once throughout the film do you see the charismatic, self-confident, and extremely intelligent Napoleon whom hundreds of thousands of men willingly and enthusiastically followed into battle.  

Even more frustrating is the fact that the entire film more or less centers on Napoleon’s relationship with Josephine. At times, it seemed like she was the main character, not him. Unsurprisingly, this led to the point of absurdity. It felt as if Scott was trying to convey the message that Napoleon conquered primarily for her and that she was his entire world. Josephine says as much to Napoleon in the movie, declaring, “You are just a brute that is nothing without me.” Ridley Scott even has Napoleon respond, “I am just a brute that is nothing without you” to Josephine in a rather servile and pathetic manner.  

Scott goes as far as to suggest that Napoleon abandoned his troops in Egypt strictly because he learned of Josephine’s infidelity back at home. This, of course, is flat out historical inaccuracy. Yes, Napoleon was angry, but he did not leave Egypt because of that. In truth, he left Egypt for a variety of bigger reasons. The French government was weak and struggling mightily, Russia and Austria were bolstering their alliance, the British Navy recently destroyed the French Revolutionary Fleet at Aboukir, and the French Army was being defeated across Europe. Napoleon saw a rare opportunity to ascend to the top, and, sure enough, he rose to the position of First Consul through a coup not long after returning from Egypt. Suggesting that he left the theater of battle in the Middle East squarely because of Josphine is patently absurd in the extreme.  

To be sure, Josephine was a big part of Napoleon’s life, and he loved her in an extraordinary way. But she did not play a big and vast role in the way that Ridley Scott would have you believe.  

Even more disgraceful and preposterous was the way in which Napoleon was portrayed back home in France. For example, when Napoleon fussed with the British ambassador, he cried, “You think you're so great because you have boats!” When he was arguing with Josephine at dinner one evening, he declared, “Destiny has brought me this lamb chop,” before entering a food fight with his wife. On another occasion, Napoleon slapped Josephine in the face when she choked up reading her annulment statement.  

Overall, Scott’s depiction of Napoleon succeeded in making the emperor look like a weak, abusive, and angry little man.

Battle Scenes

Now we arrive at the battle sequences. There is more good than bad, and I will highlight some of both. In the beginning stages of the movie, Scott depicts the Siege of Toulon, which saw a young Napoleon lead French forces in a surprise attack during the night against a fort occupied by British and allied forces in the city of Toulon. The youthful Napoleon, depicted as frightened yet daring, succeeds in turning the cannons against the British Navy stationed there even after his horse was shot in the chest with a cannonball. Not everything about the battle was historically accurate, but it was nonetheless well executed and quite entertaining.  

Next is the 13 Vendemiaire, the royalist uprising that Napoleon was charged with quashing. Not much is shown aside from a few conversations Napoleon had with his French superiors beforehand and what transpires. Napoleon sets into place a row of cannons in the streets of Paris and unloads into the unruly crowd that was heading in his direction.

As is typically understood about the event, a good portion of the rebels were armed. But Scott does not depict any individual within the crowd as armed. What Scott meant to imply was that Napoleon simply obliterated an unarmed group of flag-waving protesters with cannon fire, no doubt wanting the audience to believe early on that Napoleon was an unfeeling, mass murdering monster.  

Scott also displayed the Battle of the Pyramids, or rather, a single cannonball being fired by Napoleon into the pyramids. That is quite literally all he shows of the famous battle. This is another historical error. Napoleon never attacked the pyramids, and the actual battle took place multiple kilometers away from the actual site where the pyramids were located.  

On the other hand, Scott never mentions why Napoleon launched an expedition to Egypt. He also never highlights the interesting fact that Napoleon invited over 160 scientists, intellectuals, mathematicians, and historians along with him so they could discover and learn more about the long and storied history of the regions in which they were traveling. Fascinatingly, Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt was responsible for the rediscovery of the Rosetta Stone, which is used to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics. But this was not fascinating enough for Ridley Scott to include in the film.  

The Battle of Austerlitz was another battle that was strongly executed on screen, notwithstanding the many liberties taken by the film crew regarding historical accuracy. Napoleon and his French Army, through the foggy and dreary winter weather, masterfully defeat the adversarial Russian and Austrian armies as they take them by surprise. As the opposing soldiers try to escape across the frozen lake near the end of the battle, Napoleon’s perfectly placed cannon fire pierces through the ice and sends a great many unfortunate Russians and Austrians to their deep, dark, and freezing deaths.

Austerlitz was one of the few bright spots in the film, not much of Borodino was shown, and the Battle of Waterloo towards the end of the film was good, but not great as it was loaded with yet more historical inaccuracies. In both Borodino and Waterloo, Scott has Napoleon charging the enemy on horseback straight into battle, which of course did not happen. He even laughably highlights British soldiers attempting to snipe Napoleon from afar at Waterloo.  

As for the Battle of Waterloo itself, it was well done to an extent. Scott shows the rain before the fight and shows the substance of the subsequent battle on the green and wet Belgian field. Napoleon’s cavalry attacks and artillery were not enough to defeat the formidable Duke of Wellington, whose army was bolstered later in the battle by a sizable force of Prussians under Blucher, who entered the battle on Napoleon’s flank.  

Scott displays the square-shaped formations of British troops tasked with defending against French cavalry and places each square formation side by side. In reality, the formations were placed diagonally in a checkerboard fashion from each other in order to avoid friendly fire instances. In addition, Scott showed the Prussian relief arriving on Napoleon’s left flank, not on the right flank. (The latter was historically accurate.)  

How Napoleon was portrayed coordinating battle was rather odd. During certain battle scenes, Scott depicts Napoleon as removed and indifferent. Scott has Napoleon periodically and begrudgingly give hand signals and head nods to his men as orders to carry out a certain action. But we knew Napoleon to be a man who handed out written orders, which were clear and concise as to what had to be done. The mindless, detached way in which he hands out instructions is dull and uninteresting. Not once do we see Napoleon at a table overlooking a map, formulating strategy with his generals. Scott shows little, if anything at all, of Napoleon’s tactics, maneuvering, or battle strategy during any of the featured battles. 

On another note, the whole of the movie is set in a dark, dreary, grey color filter. Excepting scenes from Egypt and Toulon, this depressing filter sets the tone throughout the entirety of the film, especially so in France and in the battles of Austerlitz, Borodino, and Waterloo. It is as if Scott wanted to drive home the point that the past was a dark, dreary, and uncolorful place and that Napoleon was a somber, cloudy figure who did not deserve to have a colorful and vibrant film made about him. It was all too depressing to watch.  

Conclusion 

As this review nears its end, I would be remiss if I did not highlight some of the film’s positives. The battle scenes were great, the presentation of the Coup of 18 Brumaire was hectic and exciting, the coronation scene was excellent, and the cinematography was on point. The detailed and complex uniforms displayed throughout the movie were impressive but would have been much more aesthetically vibrant had their color been allowed to shine. As for the actors, they did the best job they could have done considering the roles they were given. But otherwise, the film was a massive disaster and a vast disappointment.  

It was abundantly clear throughout the film that Scott did not care an inch for historical accuracy. Suggesting that Napoleon left his troops in Egypt because of Josephine's infidelity, implying that he escaped his exile in Elba because of Josephine, showing Napoleon shoot cannonballs at the pyramids, the various battle scene inaccuracies, and the terrible way in which Scott depicted Napoleon were enough to make any history-minded individual disheartened after watching the film.  

By all measures, the film was a historical hit piece against Napoleon. Scott succeeded in presenting Napoleon as a pathetic and deranged weakling who seldom, if ever, exhibited his military and political genius. To be sure, no movie today would glorify Napoleon, as it is simply not allowed for a film to glorify and celebrate one of the great men of history. But to attack Napoleon in this particular regard took it to the extreme and painted him in a horrible and unjustifiable light, and his historical reputation will suffer as a result. In truth, it was an unfair and erroneous attack against one of the greatest and most accomplished men who ever lived.  

If this all-out assault on Napoleon was not yet complete, at the end of the film Napoleon’s death was anticlimactic and mundane. He slumped over and died in a casual manner as he heard Josephine’s voice calling for him to join her, saying, “Next time I will be emperor and you will do what I say.” After the film was over, Scott saw fit to list the number of dead from all the major battles, as if Napoleon were entirely to blame for all the wars and deaths.  

In the end, the film was an incohesive and discombobulated mess riddled with historical inaccuracies and laughable absurdities. Although the film has redeeming qualities, they are simply no match for the overwhelming negatives. The biggest and clearest blunder of all was trying to fit over twenty years of Napoleon’s life into a two-and-a-half-hour movie. It simply was not achievable, and the fact that Scott attempted to achieve it anyway cost the film dearly regarding pacing, continuity, and cohesion. That, along with the blatant inaccuracies and the pathetic way in which Napoleon was portrayed, destroyed the potential greatness of this film before the cast and crew even arrived on set.   

This past August marked one year since I began writing on Substack. Since that time, this publication has grown far more than I originally expected it to. This is in large part thanks to the support of my readers, which I am increasingly grateful for.  

When I initially started my Substack, I had no idea where it would eventually lead me. At first, it was just an outlet I could utilize to pour out my thoughts when I had nowhere else to express them. But it has since morphed into a rather sizable publication in which I have the honor of informing over two hundred readers on current politics, history, foreign policy, and other subject matters.  

Over the past year, I have written numerous articles, some bad and some good. Since this is a year in review type of post, I will highlight some of my favorites I have published as well as the more popular ones I have written.  

Firstly, I would like to highlight my piece in defense of the Confederate Memorial in Arlington which was published this past September. This is the most important article I have ever written, and it is a subject I care deeply about. I dove into the history of the memorial and explained how it was created to promote peace and reconciliation as well as to honor the brave men who died for the South during the Civil War. This article received a lot of positive feedback on X (formerly Twitter) and some compliments from big X accounts. Unfortunately, the plan to remove this important piece of our history is still in place.

The second article I wish to highlight is my piece on Argentine presidential candidate Javier Milei. This was by far the most popular article I have written. In it, I examined Milei’s political views as well as his economic plan to right the ship in Argentina, a country that was one of the richest nations in the world at the beginning of the twentieth century but is now one of the poorest. Milei, with his radical views, is portrayed across the media as ‘far-right’ and an ‘extremist.’ But he couldn’t make more sense for Argentina. He has a steep hill to climb to reach the presidency and faces a runoff election soon against the establishment candidate.

Additionally, I would like to make mention of my piece in late May chronicling all (or most of) the Ukrainian attacks inside the borders of Russia up until that point in time. Back then, the Ukrainian government hid their complicity and involvement in directing these attacks and lied about them repeatedly. As I note in the article, Kyiv participated in numerous air incursions into Russia and was complicit in targeted assassinations of prominent Russian individuals. To my pleasant surprise, the great Scott Horton shared the article on X and called it “an important piece.” Now that was pretty cool.

Lastly, I want to feature my article on the four prominent men who opposed dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. I include several different quotes from Eisenhower, Hoover, MacArthur, and Leahy about their disapproval of using the bomb. American history as taught currently does not make mention of their dissent to this unprecedented action, and so I thought it would be important to highlight what they had to say about the bomb.

Notable mentions include my piece on the USS Liberty, Crimea, Ron DeSantis’ foreign policy, and my article on Victor Orban and his Hungary First, realism-based foreign policy.  

Looking Ahead and Expressing my Thanks

Even though I have slowed the pace at which I publish, more content is on the way, and hopefully, I’ll be able to get it out sooner rather than later. I certainly plan to write more often, and that is the goal moving forward.  

I’ve been thinking about writing book and movie reviews every now and then as well. I intend to go see Napoleon at the movie theaters as soon as it comes out and write a review afterward. Also on my mind is writing an article on the movie Patton, which I greatly enjoyed. Regarding book reviews, I have thought that writing reviews could be beneficial to me because I unfortunately tend to forget a lot of what I read in a book a week or so after I finish it, and that, as you can imagine, is frustrating at times. Writing them would certainly help my memory in that regard.  

I’ve also been contemplating writing weekly reviews in which I peruse the major events within a given week.  

To conclude this year in review, I want to emphasize my thanks to some of my fellow writers who supported me along the way and gave me tips to help me reach a larger audience. They deserve mentioning. Steven Craddock, who writes at Thoughts Into Words, is an excellent writer who has supported me and my work from the beginning. I highly recommend you check out his work. Second, I would like to mention Joe Shanley, who writes at OpenBookReport. He is another talented writer that I recommend you check out. I am especially thankful to him for the tips and suggestions he gave me with regard to improving foot traffic to my publication.  

Finally, I wish to thank you, the reader, for sticking with me and my publication. There is much more to come.  

Last week, what remained of a statue of Robert E. Lee was melted down and destroyed in an undisclosed location. The statue was previously at the center of attention during the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” protests of 2017 and was removed from its place four years later, in June 2021. The famous work of art depicting Lee astride his beloved horse, Traveller, is now gone forever.

Those who defend this destruction of Lee’s image attempt to justify it on the grounds that Lee, in their eyes, was merely a “traitor” and slaveholder who was responsible for leading hundreds of thousands of men to die for an “evil” cause. Hence, they argue that statues dedicated to Lee must be torn down, or, in this case, melted.

But this ahistorical description of Lee is egregious at best and an outright lie at worst.

In his time, Lee was highly respected and revered by both sides of the Civil War. Lincoln and Grant held a deep respect for him. Americans after the conflict regarded Lee as an American hero alongside Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. Contrary to what today’s leaders might have to say about General Lee, numerous American presidents spoke highly of the Confederate leader. They praised Lee for his military prowess and upstanding leadership and expressed admiration for his integrity, courage, faith, and honor.

The purpose of this piece is to highlight those men and what they said about Lee so as to display the blatant divide between how Americans used to view Lee and how they view him now. Without further ado, here are quotes from five American presidents who held the Southern gentleman in high esteem.

Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) served as the 26th president of the United States. Roosevelt was certainly one of the most interesting characters ever to obtain the presidency, as he was noted for his dauntless adventurism, unlimited courage, and indomitable spirit. In the years before becoming commander-in-chief, Roosevelt distinguished himself as a soldier in the Spanish-American War. Most notably, Roosevelt led an elite group known as the “Rough Riders” into battle up San Juan Hill in Cuba, earning himself widespread fame back home as a war hero.

In a letter addressed to a committee arranging the celebration of Robert E. Lee’s 100th birthday, President Roosevelt applauded the memory of Lee:

General Lee has left us the memory, not merely of his extraordinary skill as a general, his dauntless courage and high leadership in campaign and battle, but also of that serene greatness of soul characteristic of those who most readily recognize the obligations of civic duty. Once the war was over he instantly under took the task of healing and binding up the wounds of his countrymen, in the true spirit of those who feel malice toward none and charity toward all; in that spirit which from the throes of the Civil War brought forth the real and indissoluble Union of to-day.

Roosevelt then praised Lee’s life after the war and the paths he took to help produce peace and educate the youth of the South as president of Washington College (now known as Washington and Lee University):

It was eminently fitting that this great man, this war-worn veteran of a mighty struggle, who, at its close, simply and quietly undertook his duty as a plain, every-day citizen, bent only upon helping his people in the paths of peace and tranquility, should turn his attention toward educational work; toward bringing up in fit fashion the younger generation, the sons of those who had proved their faith by their endeavor in the heroic days… From the close of the war to the time of his death all his great powers were devoted to two objects: to the reconciliation of all his countrymen with one another, and to fitting the youth of the South for the duties of a lofty and broad-minded citizenship.

Gerald Ford

Gerald Ford (1913-2006) was America’s 38th President, rising to the presidency after Nixon was conquered by Watergate. Prior to becoming president, Ford enlisted in the Navy after Pearl Harbor and served his country bravely during the war, earning ten battle stars for participation in numerous engagements.

Delivering remarks before signing a bill that restored full rights of citizenship to Lee on August 5, 1975, Ford recognized Lee’s efforts to pursue peaceful relations and reconciliation after the end of the Civil War:

Once the war was over, he firmly felt the wounds of the North and South must be bound up. He sought to show by example that the citizens of the South must dedicate their efforts to rebuilding that region 'of the country as a strong and vital part of the American Union.

Ford went on to highlight Lee “as the symbol of valor and of duty.”

As a soldier, General Lee left his mark on military strategy. As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox.

FDR

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) served as America’s 32nd president and was elected an unprecedented four times. Leading the country through the Great Depression and the Second World War, he solidified his place in American history as one of the nation’s most famous and impactful leaders.

On June 12, 1936, Roosevelt unveiled the Robert E. Lee Memorial Statue in Dallas, Texas. Before the unveiling, he described Lee in his remarks as one of the “greatest” Americans:

All over the United States we recognize him as a great leader of men, as a great general. But, also, all over the United States I believe that we recognize him as something much more important than that. We recognize Robert E. Lee as one of our greatest American Christians and one of our greatest American gentlemen.

Lyndon Johnson

Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) was America’s 36th president. While in office, he signed into law the Civil Rights Act (1964), expanded the welfare state, led a failed “War on Poverty,” and massively escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War. Before the madness of the ‘60s, Johnson became the first member of Congress to volunteer for military service in World War II.

On October 9, 1964, President Johnson spoke at a fundraising dinner in New Orleans and commended Lee as a “great son of the South” and a uniting figure for all Americans:

If we are to heal our history and make this Nation whole, prosperity must know no Mason-Dixon line and opportunity must know no color line. Robert E. Lee, a great son of the South, a great leader of the South--and I assume no modern day leader would question him or challenge him--Robert E. Lee counseled us well when he told us to cast off our animosities, and raise our sons to be Americans.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969) served as the 34th President of the United States and was one of America’s leading generals during the Second World War. Made a full general in 1943 and appointed Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force later in the year, Eisenhower spearheaded, supervised, and planned the most ambitious aspects of the war, such as Operation Torch (the Allied invasion of North Africa) and the infamous D-Day invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe in 1944.

On August 1, 1960, a disapproving citizen wrote President Eisenhower a letter in which he demanded an explanation as to why the general had a portrait of Robert E. Lee in his office. (Eisenhower had four pictures in his office of whom he deemed the “four greatest Americans.”)

In response, Ike produced the most powerful defense of Lee ever written by an American president. Part of the letter reads:

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history. 

Ike ended the letter thus:

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained. 

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall. 

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower 

Today, it is simply unimaginable for a leader in politics to talk about Robert E. Lee in this way. Anyone who would be brave enough to do so would inevitably be branded a ‘racist’ and bullied into withdrawing their remarks. But it wasn’t always like this. Lee used to be highly respected by a sizable majority of Americans for being a man of faith and for staying true to his principles, and those who publicly admired Lee were safe from cancellation.

American leaders and citizens alike saw Robert E. Lee as the quintessential Southern gentleman and soldier, who, despite his fault as a slaveholder, was a great and honest man who fought for his people and state. Whatever the actions of today’s iconoclasts, this true memory of Lee will never be lost. Many Americans still consider Lee to be one of the greatest and most courageous leaders to come out of the Civil War, if not the greatest.

Leaders of the past more or less agreed. Teddy Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower weren’t the only ones. Harry Truman considered Lee to be one of his heroes. Winston Churchill described the Confederate leader as “one of the noblest Americans who ever lived.” Ronald Reagan lauded Lee as an “American legend.” John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, among countless others, venerated Lee as well.

The recent terrorist attacks against Israel constitute a horrifying tragedy.

On October 7, Hamas militants conducted a large-scale incursion into Israel from land, air, and sea. Hamas’ outright evil and butchery were on full display during the attack as hundreds of innocent Israelis, many women and children included, were murdered, raped, and kidnapped. In addition, thousands of rockets were launched into civilian areas, which resulted in more innocent deaths.

In response, Israel has promised to unleash unfathomable hell on Hamas, which is located in the Gaza Strip, a densely populated area of over two million people. At the time of this writing, Israel has orchestrated numerous air attacks in Gaza and is expected to commence a ground invasion of the area very soon to eradicate Hamas once and for all. Thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed thus far by Israeli military operations, and tens of thousands more are projected to die if Israel carries out a broad-scale invasion.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are essentially stuck with nowhere to go. To the south of Gaza, Egypt has taken unprecedented measures to secure and close its border to prevent any migrants from pouring in. Understandably, Israel isn’t letting anybody in either. Crammed in a tightly packed area amongst Hamas terrorists with nowhere to escape, masses of innocent Palestinians are facing a war of literal hell.

Also exacerbating the current crisis is the possibility of the war expanding beyond Israel and Gaza. Tensions have been soaring between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group in Lebanon that has already involved itself in the war, albeit not to a full extent. Most notably, the two powers clashed in the 2006 Lebanon War, which turned out to be indecisive and costly for both sides. Hezbollah currently harbors over 100,000 sophisticated rockets aimed directly at Israel from the north and has tens of thousands of fighters ready to fight.

Expectedly, the war drums have also intensified between Israel and Iran as well, as many U.S. and Israeli officials have pinned the blame on Tehran for the terrorist attacks last Saturday.

Though tensions are soaring, these powers are not yet involved in a total war against Israel. If these forces were to join the war, Israel would find itself in an existential war to protect its very existence. Needless to say, Netanyahu’s emergency government would do well not to underestimate the possible formation of an anti-Israel alliance of Arab countries if the war expands.

So, what should America’s response be to the present situation in the Middle East? Well, if you ask Senator Lindsey Graham, the United States is “involved in a religious war” and should instigate a conflict with Iran by bombing Tehran’s oil refineries. GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley described the attack on Israel as “an attack on America” and additionally advocated for Israel and, presumably, the Biden administration, to “finish” Iran.

Besides the obvious observation that both Graham and Haley are bloodthirsty and tireless interventionists with riches to extract from the war business, their comments are nonetheless absurd and dangerous. Contrary to their assertions, this is not America’s war to fight. An attack on Israel, a foreign nation, does not translate whatsoever to an attack on America, and one of the most unwise policies one could enact right now would be picking a fight with Iran.

Moreover, it is simply unconscionable for the United States to further entangle itself in the Middle East through yet another war while the American people are dealing with massive, seemingly unsolvable problems at home. Continually sending billions to foreign countries and pushing for more war makes it abundantly clearer that American politicians place the national security of Israel and Ukraine above that of America.

Put simply, they love the empire and not the nation. If Graham, Haley, and all the other liberal internationalists stood to protect the interests of the latter, they would spend the majority of their political time addressing the issues that are plaguing ordinary Americans, such as rampant crime, widespread drug addiction, economic insecurity, illegal immigration, and an increasingly hostile federal government hell-bent on persecuting its political enemies. But as Mike Pence pointed out, these issues are not their “concern.”

Alas, the war between Israel and Hamas garners far more attention from America’s ruling elite than the domestic problems negatively affecting American citizens.

But this needn’t be the case. Foreign wars taking place thousands of miles away from America’s shores shouldn’t take precedence over vast domestic problems. Israel is more than capable of defending itself and is certainly up to the task of defeating Hamas without direct American involvement via boots on the ground. More than anything, American leaders should instead focus their attention on securing and defending the Southern border, which has been left utterly defenseless.

This may sound like common sense, but the insane regime we live under today favors anything but common sense. According to a recent report from The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. is planning to deploy an estimated 2,000 troops to the region to support Israel in its war against Hamas. Though the troops “aren't intended to serve in a combat role,” the move will nevertheless put them in a dangerous environment.

Sending American troops to the region increases the possibility of an American-Iranian conflict that could easily spiral out of control, as well as potentially expanding the size and scope of Israel’s war. It is in America’s best and long-term interests to avoid a war with Iran, and it might be in Israel’s interests to resist American involvement to prevent further madness from ensuing.

By all accounts, this war will be an immensely devastating one. As Israel continues its operations aimed at decimating Hamas, many innocent Palestinians will die. In turn, violent hatred toward Israel will surely flare up amongst Muslims in the region and lead to further destruction and more countries entering the war. This is all the more reason for America to stay out and instead push for a ceasefire.

Now is a time to put America First and work to contain war, not spread it. As corrupt political figures attempt to thrust the U.S. into another costly war, it is ever more important to push back and advocate for realism and restraint.

If we have learned anything over the past two decades, it is that foreign adventures abroad, particularly in the Middle East, do not protect core American interests. For far too long, wars have been waged not for the protection of the nation but to advance the material interests of the empire. Becoming further embroiled in yet another Middle Eastern war will continue this tradition, at great expense to the American people.

Once you cede an inch to the political left, you’ll soon discover that you’ve lost a mile. Modern conservatism and its leaders have failed to effectively combat the left in this regard, and American society suffers in the process. Nowhere else does this unfortunate reality become more apparent than in the battle surrounding American history.

For decades, Confederate monuments and statues have been attacked, vandalized, and destroyed with little to no resistance from the right. Of course, the left wasn’t just going to stop at taking down Confederate and Southern history. Its ideological followers soon set their sights elsewhere.

The summer of 2020 demonstrated just how radical this faction was and how far they were willing to go to undermine and dismantle America’s past. Hundreds of statues were toppled, defaced, and subsequently removed, not only of Confederate leaders but also of American Founding Fathers and more recent individuals. Statues of Washington, Jefferson, Grant, Lincoln, Douglass, and Teddy Roosevelt were eliminated, along with countless others.

Since then, the routine destruction of American history has continued as the left maintains its hostile posture towards what it deems “inconvenient” and “offensive” history. And by no means is it going to stop. As the great Pat Buchanan wrote in December 2020, the attack on our nation’s past was “far from over.”

As usual, Buchanan was right. The latest example of the left’s desire to erase American historical culture and paint it in a negative light can be reflected in the New York City Council agenda on September 19. Amid an extraordinary illegal immigration crisis that is increasingly overwhelming the city’s infrastructure and treasury, the Democratic-led council has been fixated on an entirely different issue. Rather than address the city’s needs, the members of the council have seen fit to target New York’s historical statues for removal.

The council’s Cultural Affairs Committee recently held a hearing to discuss and contemplate a measure aimed at removing statues and other works of art on New York City property that “depict a person who owned enslaved persons or directly benefited economically from slavery, or who participated in systemic crimes against indigenous peoples or other crimes against humanity.” Furthermore, if a park or school is named after any one of these individuals, the council would require that a plaque explaining the misdeeds of the person be installed next to the school or park.

What Could Be Removed

Above all, the proposal will notably endanger George Washington, who has several statues of his likeness on city property. One such statue in Union Square, Manhattan, depicts Washington commencing his triumphant march on horseback through Manhattan in the aftermath of the British evacuation of New York City in 1783. A monument erected on July 4, 1856, to honor America’s Father and to commemorate the Revolutionary War effort will be dismantled if the council succeeds in its history-smashing endeavor.

Similar to Washington, there are still multiple statues of Christopher Columbus in the city. Out of all the works, the statue in Columbus Circle holds the most significance, both in its importance to the Italian-American community and the year in which it was built. The famed piece of art was constructed by Italian sculptor Gaetano Russo in 1892 to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Columbus’ landing in the New World. This too will be removed if the measure advances.

But by no means are Washington and Columbus the only individuals at risk of having their statues and monuments torn down. The list is far broader.

According to the language within the proposed measure, persons who engaged in “systemic crimes against indigenous peoples” and who committed “other crimes against humanity” are also in danger of having their history erased. This criteria will most likely include President Abraham Lincoln, General William Tecumseh Sherman, General Ulysses S. Grant, and General Philip Henry Sheridan because of their treatment of “indigenous peoples.”

Under threat is a bronze, larger-than-life statue of Abraham Lincoln that was dedicated on October 21, 1869. It is one of the oldest Lincoln statues. An equestrian, gold-colored statue of General Sherman that was dedicated in 1903 is also at stake. Additionally, an equestrian statue of General Grant in Brooklyn that was dedicated in 1896 is in danger mainly because he was a slaveholder.

Peter Stuyvesant, Dutch governor and early settler of New York, is also in danger of having his name scrubbed and his statue removed. Stuyvesant has a high school and a park named after him, along with a statue erected in his honor over eighty years ago.

If the left succeeds in passing this measure, these and other relics of our past will soon be gone.

As it stands, there is no firm opposition to the left’s deleterious agenda, which threatens the very fabric of our historical culture. But there is still a path out of this, no matter how bleak the situation may seem at the present moment. It is way overdue for conservatives, libertarians, and others on the right to form a broad and formidable coalition against the factions who desire the removal of historical statues and monuments. Undoubtedly, the only way this will end is if more people on the right put their foot down and say, “Enough.”

“NOT FOR FAME OR REWARD

NOT FOR PLACE OR FOR RANK
NOT LURED BY AMBITION
OR GOADED BY NECESSITY
BUT IN SIMPLE
OBEDIENCE TO DUTY
AS THEY UNDERSTOOD IT
THESE MEN SUFFERED ALL
SACRIFICED ALL
DARED ALL — AND DIED”

- The inscription etched on the north-facing side of the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery.

In the years after the American Civil War, there still remained a bitter, hostile divide between the North and the South. Post-war Reconstruction and subjugation of the South failed and exacerbated the hatred along sectional lines. At the time, many believed the deep wounds of the war were never to be fully healed. In 1898, the Spanish-American War changed that — in an extraordinary way. Former Confederate and Union soldiers were tapped to spearhead the war effort. Men from North and South, setting their differences aside, took up arms and united for a common cause.

U.S. President William McKinley, a former decorated Union veteran himself, spotted a tremendous opportunity to further promote peace and reconciliation along Northern and Southern lines after victory was achieved in the conflict. He made a trip to the South to commemorate the unity of America and the valor of the South. While traveling, he witnessed the deteriorating condition of Confederate Civil War graves and was disheartened at the dismal sight. As a result, McKinley sought to better honor the fallen dead of the South. He became the first to suggest the creation of a monument to memorialize the fallen soldiers of the Confederacy at Arlington National Cemetery.

In 1906, Secretary of War William Howard Taft authorized the United Daughters of the Confederacy to draw up plans and raise funds for a Confederate memorial. The team ultimately chose Moses Ezekial, a Jewish American and Confederate veteran, to sculpt the project. Ezekial was one of the better-known American sculptors at the time, as he was most renowned for constructing a life-size statue of Thomas Jefferson for the University of Virginia and for also being the first Jewish cadet at the Virginia Military Institute. Today, he lies buried right beside the Confederate Memorial, making his creation his literal headstone.

In 1912, the cornerstone of the monument was laid. Taft, now president, spoke at the event in front of thousands. Democrats and Republicans, Union and Confederate veterans, all took part in the historic commemoration.

The memorial was officially erected on June 4, 1914, and was unveiled by President Woodrow Wilson. A bronze memorial with a granite base, the statue is the second tallest in the cemetery. A female figure, which represents the South, holds a wreath in one hand while the other rests on a plow. Just under the circular base on which the statue stands are 32 life-size figures, all of whom represent the sacrifices the South endured during the war.

The memorial became a fixture in American history and an important relic of a time of newfound harmony and peace. Starting with Wilson, nearly every president has sent an annual funeral wreath to the memorial to pay respects to the fallen Southern soldiers. President Barack Obama, the nation’s first African American president, continued the tradition, despite heated pressure from the woke crowd not to do so.

As the men of the time understood it, the memorial was about peace, reconciliation, and harmony. The monument stood in part to bury the hatchet of conflicts past as well as to properly honor and remember the Confederate dead in the Civil War. It also stood to signify a new beginning in American history, a new era that was emblematic of cross-state unity and the reconciling of differences once thought irreconcilable.

Now, the storied memorial is at risk of being destroyed. As part of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, the “Naming Commission” was created with the sole purpose “to remove the names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America.” The Department of Defense has empowered the Naming Commission with this incredibly broad power, and the Confederate Memorial in Arlington subsequently became its primary target for desecration. The memorial is set to be removed on January 1, 2024, absent any meaningful resistance.

Once seen as a monument symbolizing accord and reconciliation, it is now portrayed as both racist and offensive. Thus, according to regime media and historians, it must be removed from sight and tossed into the wastebin of destroyed history. According to them, the monument to honor the Confederate dead and promote peace is, in actuality, a glorification of slavery, as they believe everything to do with the Confederacy is. Some critics suggest that the memorial is a distortion and a misrepresentation of Civil War history. But is it really?

If the monument is supposedly a gross distortion and misrepresentation of Civil War history, then why did countless Union veterans, most notably William McKinley, support its creation? What did the men at the time understand about the war that the woke brigade and iconoclasts of today don’t?

Contrary to current American history as taught by the government-run education system, most understood that the Civil War was not entirely centered on the issue of abolishing slavery. In 1861, two slaveholding republics were at war. Four slave states in the Union (Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky) were not required to surrender their slaves for the entirety of the war. Kentucky still held slave auctions many months after the war ended. Delaware didn’t abolish slavery until December 1865. New Jersey was the last Northern state to eradicate slavery, and it didn’t do so until January 1866. (Keep in mind that the war ended in April of ‘65).

The Union and Confederate veterans also understood that in every major Civil War battle, slave-owning Northerners fought against non-slave-owning Southerners. The overwhelming majority of whites in the South didn’t own slaves, and the vast majority didn’t benefit economically from slavery. Jim Webb, a Vietnam veteran and former U.S. Senator (D-VA), points out more historical truths in his latest piece in the Wall Street Journal in defense of the Confederate Memorial:

They understood that President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in those states or in the areas of the South that had already been conquered. The proclamation freed only slaves in the areas taken after it was issued. And in the eyes of a Confederate soldier, if Lincoln had not freed slaves in the union, why should the soldier be vilified for supposedly fighting on behalf of slavery?

Americans have been heavily indoctrinated to adopt a sports team mentality and to believe the good versus evil narrative of the Civil War, and, as a result, basic historical facts like the ones mentioned above evade the monument smashers and desecrators of history today. The iconoclasts, fully supported by those in power, do not seem to understand the history they seem so hellbent on destroying.

They argue that everything that has anything whatsoever to do with the Confederacy is somehow related to the defense of slavery and therefore must be extinguished. This has been the excuse they have wielded for decades to justify tearing down Confederate monuments. But as we have seen over the years, especially in the summer of 2020, the goals of this faction aren’t merely confined to destroying statues and monuments of Confederate leaders. During the “Black Lives Matter” protests and riots that year, hundreds of statues were toppled, defaced, and dismantled. Statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt were toppled, along with statues of Northern Civil War leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Frederick Douglass.

When the motives of this faction are boiled down, it becomes vividly clear that, above all else, they seek the complete and utter destruction of American history. This is why safeguarding Confederate statues and memorials is so paramount to protecting the rest of our history. The extinguishment of all things Confederate doesn’t just halt there. It continues until all of what this faction deems “inconvenient history” is obliterated from our understanding. Their movement will surely shift to taking out all of our history, and that history will subsequently be altered to better fit the narrative and worldview of the Leviathan State, as it already has to some extent.

The Confederate Memorial in Arlington should remain intact and should not be removed. It is a historic memorial that has stood for over a century, representing reconciliation, harmony, and peace between Americans. It lauds the ultimate sacrifice of so many fallen Southern soldiers who were not properly memorialized prior. If we continue to allow the destruction of our history to occur, then we should not be in a state of surprise when that storied history is no longer there for our children and grandchildren to learn from.

Argentine presidential candidate Javier Milei shocked the world on August 13 when he won over thirty percent of the vote in the country’s primary elections. The vote created a huge disturbance for the political establishment in Argentina, as the two main political forces were soundly defeated by a once ignored economist and television commentator. Milei, a staunch libertarian and an adherent to the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, has a legitimate opportunity to become the first libertarian president in modern history.

Javier Milei can be best described as a right-libertarian who embodies everything the political left abhors. He is in favor of eliminating the central bank, cutting regulations, and lowering taxes. Milei is an advocate of the right to bear arms and is unapologetically pro-life. He isn’t exactly the warmest friend of the LGBTQ+ community and the increasingly radical ideology that surrounds it. Milei once called climate change a “socialist lie” that is meant to deceive the population for the end purpose of gathering more power for the state.

Ever the spirited citizen, Milei can be brutally blunt. His stated mission is to “kick Keynesians and collectivists in the ass.” He describes leftists as “shit.” Asked in an interview why he defended the right to own a firearm, Milei retorted, “Why are you in favor of honest Argentines suffering like rats at the hands of criminals?” On the issue of taxation, Milei pledged to “cut off his arm” before he would ever raise taxes.

In essence, Milei is a Republican, except that he truly believes in reducing the size of the state and isn’t afraid of going after the left. His laid-out plan to bring about a drastic reduction in the size of Argentina’s government is no laughing matter. In his so-called “chainsaw plan,” Milei aims to abolish a plethora of government agencies and departments, which include the ministries of education, health, social development, culture, and much more.

Milei’s supporters are some of the most impassioned political groups in the world. Thousands upon thousands routinely gathered at his campaign events, sometimes swarming Milei with energetic admiration. His support mainly resides in Argentina’s young, who have developed understandable resentment and anger at politics in the country. A former member of a rock band, Milei loves to fire up the massive crowds at his events.

The Economy and Milei’s Plan to Right the Ship

In truth, the broad resentment and anger among Argentinians is warranted. One of the most prosperous nations in the world at the beginning stages of the twentieth century, its economy now ranks among the worst. The annual inflation rate surpasses 110%, and an estimated forty percent of its people live in poverty. In addition to these economic adversities, the Argentine peso is largely worthless.

Luckily, the source of economic troubles is always identifiable. This is especially the case in Argentina. Peronism and its emphasis on Keynesianism have decimated the economy for decades with unchecked government spending, ubiquitous regulations, high taxes, and rampant inflation, which have all contributed to destroying the average lifestyle.

The people of Argentina have concluded that Milei holds the only answer to solving this economic crisis: freedom. A longtime professor of economics and a follower of the Austrian School of Economics, Milei knows what it takes to uplift Argentina from abject poverty. His detailed proposal to unleash the free market, shift to dollarization, and restrict government intervention is widely considered erratic and uncalled for in establishment political circles, but it might just be what Argentina needs to ascend to the status of a global economic power again.

In addition to cutting taxes and regulations, Milei intends to dispose of all import and export tariffs, along with removing quotas to embrace free trade. Additionally, he aims to significantly reduce government spending and set the welfare system on the road to privatization. But the most impactful move will be killing the poisonous central bank. The relentless money printing over the years has inflated Argentina’s currency to the point of no return, which has produced astronomical inflation that naturally hits the poor the hardest. By eradicating the source of the hyperinflation, Milei will tackle the problem directly.

Through his economic policies, Milei has presented himself as the only man who can revive the Argentinian economy, return his country to its proper place in the world, and address the needs of his people. Needless to say, the Argentinian people have been severely hurt in innumerable ways for far too long while their political overlords flourish. “This model of crooked politicians, crony businessmen, and union leaders turning their backs on workers left us with this mess,” Milei said. “In that context, we went from having a rich society to a poor one, where the only ones who prospered were from the damned political class.”

“I am the Lion!”

To the amazement of many who doubted his rise, Milei has emerged as the most popular individual in Argentinian politics. He has won the hearts and minds of millions with his anti-establishment rhetoric and his message of liberty, justice, and truth. When Milei closed out his presidential campaign ahead of the primary elections on August 7, he did so in an arena packed with over ten thousand people. Together, they chanted, “Let them go, let not a single one remain,” in reference to Argentina’s political class.

Argentinians are clearly frustrated with the many failures of socialism under decades of Peronist rule, and they have thrown their weight behind a man who is promising to destroy this system and bring “an end to the parasitic, corrupt, and useless political caste that exists” in Argentina. As a result, millions have flocked to the radical ideas of libertarianism that Milei regularly promotes.

“I am the lion!” roared Milei on the night of August 7. “I am the king in a lost world.” Indeed. Milei is a courageously bold figure paving the way for a more prosperous, free society in Argentina. In a confused world that continually looks to the state to solve every microscopic problem, Milei is leading a once-flourishing society in a completely different direction to rediscover its roots and resurrect its cherished freedoms that have been buried and suppressed under the repressive boot of socialism.

The ascent of Milei is uniquely unprecedented in that no “libertarian” has come this close to winning a presidency. If elected and Milei’s administration operates according to his vision, the nations of the world will witness firsthand that a society predicated on economic liberty, minuscule government, and individual freedom can produce widespread prosperity and unparalleled excellence. It’s time for freedom in Argentina.

Thanks to his stunning victory in the primary elections, Milei is now the favorite to obtain victory in the general election in October. It certainly seems as if his current momentum will never end. Time will only tell if the Lion of Argentina is to become the first self-professed libertarian head of state in history.

If there is anything Washington has mastered, it is the art of interfering in the business of foreign countries in an effort to produce a favorable outcome for the global American Empire. Whether it is by supporting coups, financing various anti-regime movements, or intervening in the political affairs of other countries, the U.S. government has accomplished these tactics for decades.

The latest unfortunate country to be subject to these operations is the South Asian nation of Pakistan and its former Prime Minister, Imran Khan. As revealed by The Intercept this past week, U.S. government officials “encouraged” the Pakistani government to remove Imran Khan from office via a no-confidence vote in March of 2022.

The Pakistani government document unveils a conversation that was held at the time between Asad Majeed Khan, Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, and two officials from the State Department, which included Donald Lu, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs. According to the transcript of the meeting, Lu conveyed dissatisfaction with Khan’s approach to the war in Ukraine, criticizing his “aggressively neutral position” and his recent trip to Moscow. (Khan was en route to Russia before Moscow decided to invade Ukraine).

At the time surrounding the invasion, Khan and his government took a beating on the international stage, as many countries disagreed vehemently with his policy of neutrality. “What do you think of us? That we are your slaves and that we will do whatever you ask of us?” Khan asked the West at a political rally a day before the meeting. “We are friends of Russia, and we are also friends of the United States. We are friends of China and Europe. We are not part of any alliance.”

Evidently, the Biden administration took notable exception to Khan’s policy and remarks. Lu threatened the Pakistani ambassador, warning that relations “will be tough going ahead” if the no-confidence vote to remove Khan failed. In addition, Lu said that Pakistan would experience international “isolation” if Khan wasn’t ousted from power. “Honestly,” Lu was recorded as saying, “I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.”

“I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington,” Lu said. Soon enough, the no-confidence vote advanced in the Pakistani Parliament, and Khan was eventually removed from office the following month, despite being an extraordinarily popular leader within Pakistan.

Shortly before his ouster, Khan discussed the then-classified memo, blaming the U.S. for engaging in a “foreign conspiracy” against his duly elected government. “They say they are angry with Pakistan,” Khan said. “They say they will forgive Pakistan if Imran Khan loses a no-trust motion. But if the vote fails, Pakistan will have to face serious consequences.”

The memo was initially portrayed as an exaggerated conspiracy theory by Western media and the Pakistani establishment, but Khan has been proven right. As the document proves, there was a conspiracy against his government, and the Biden administration was at the forefront of it. State Department officials are on record promising more amicable relations between the two countries if Khan is ousted, along with threatening deterioration in affairs as well as diplomatic and international “isolation” if he isn’t.

Subscribe now

Incentives for Removing Khan

When perusing the broader picture surrounding U.S.-Pakistan relations, it becomes clear that the U.S. had plenty of incentives for wanting to eliminate Khan. Even before ascending to the role of Prime Minister, Khan was an outspoken critic of the War on Terror and the way in which it was conducted. At times, he highlighted the detrimental impact the war had on his country and argued that the war was strategically unwinnable.

OpenBookReport

Will Washington Accept the "Rule of Law" In Pakistan?

“Don’t look down on anyone unless you are helping them up.” – Pakistan Proverb The arrest and subsequent release of former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has plunged the nation into a state of heightened instability and has created an impasse for democracy through Pakistan imposing de facto martial law. As …

Read more

3 years ago · 4 likes · 1 comment · Joe Shanley

Additionally, Khan had an unfriendly relationship with the CIA as Prime Minister. For instance, Khan adamantly refused to converse with CIA Director William Burns in April 2021 after the latter arrived in Islamabad unannounced to discuss cooperation between the two countries regarding counter-terrorism operations. In an interview with Axios a few months later, Khan affirmed that Pakistan would “absolutely not” allow the CIA to utilize bases on its soil to conduct cross-border missions into neighboring Afghanistan.

But the biggest rift between Washington and Islamabad was Khan’s position on Ukraine and his advocacy of diplomacy. His Jeffersonian foreign policy very much irritated those in the West who demanded complete and universal acceptance of the narrative that Putin was de facto Hitler and Russia was an evil and illegitimate state that must be stopped. But Khan didn’t budge. Instead, he affirmed Pakistan’s mindset of no alliances and pledged to work with anyone who sought to end the conflict through dialogue.

By eliminating Khan, the Biden administration removed a consistent critic of American foreign policy from the international stage and one of the only sane voices at the time proposing peace. The government that succeeded Khan was a vastly different regime, becoming pro-Ukraine and more aligned with the U.S. worldview. Pakistan has since become an arms dealer to the Ukrainian army and a more intimate partner with the U.S. military.

Share

Sowing Chaos and Authoritarianism

In the aftermath of the no-confidence vote, a massive wave of protests occurred throughout the country. Hundreds of thousands gathered to showcase their solidarity with the outgoing Prime Minister and to voice their discontent at his removal. The Pakistani military, widely believed to be partly responsible for Kahn’s ousting, ushered in a new era of authoritarianism, instituting more control, brutally suppressing protest movements, and establishing mass censorship.

Despite his dismissal, Khan was nonetheless the favorite to win the election in October 2023. But events took their course. In early May, Khan was briefly arrested by the military on questionable corruption charges and was subsequently released due to the Supreme Court ruling his detention illegal, sparking more violent protests and clashes between the citizenry and the military. Earlier this month, Khan was sentenced to three years in prison on different corruption charges and was prohibited from participating in politics for five years.

It is not that far of a stretch to state that the Biden administration created, or, at the very least, influenced the unrest and instability we are currently witnessing in nuclear-armed Pakistan. An outside actor “encouraging” the removal of a highly popular figure from power is grounds to create a nightmarish situation in any country. At any rate, the world is now aware of American regime change efforts, which ultimately influenced the Pakistani government to dismiss its leader.

The U.S. government can incessantly criticize Russia or China all it wants, but the fact of the matter is that no other government on Earth interferes more in the foreign world and causes such divisiveness and conflict. Imran Khan was not a brutal dictator, but a man of the people and a voice of reason. Neither he nor the people of Pakistan deserve what has transpired over the past year and a half, and the Biden administration had no right whatsoever to dictate the policies of their nation.

With the highly popular Oppenheimer movie out in theaters across the world, the history of the atomic bomb, its creation, and the ever-present threat of global nuclear annihilation are uniquely popular subjects up for discussion. As such, an important debate has heated up once more surrounding both the morality and necessity of dropping not one, but two atomic weapons on Japan during the latter stages of World War II.

Like any significant event in U.S. history, the American people have not been taught the full history of the atomic bomb’s usage in Japan, much less the truth about it. For all the talk regarding this vastly important stage in our history, there is hardly any discourse on the prominent men within the U.S. government and U.S. military who steadfastly opposed using the bomb. Though an ignored minority, a sizable portion believed it wildly immoral or strategically unnecessary to induce Imperial Japan’s surrender.

Contemporary American history has failed to make mention of the dissent from these individuals and has instead resorted to flatly stating that the use of the atomic bombs was necessary to end the war. It would not be difficult to imagine that most Americans would be shocked to find out that two of America’s greatest generals were against the bomb’s use. Hence, the purpose of this article is not to argue whether or not the bomb should have been dropped, but to highlight the men who disagreed with utilizing it — and why.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969) served as the 34th President of the United States and was one of America’s leading generals during the Second World War. Promoted to the rank of general in 1943 and appointed Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force later in the year, Eisenhower spearheaded, supervised, and planned the most ambitious aspects of the war, such as Operation Torch (the Allied invasion of North Africa) and the infamous D-Day invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe in 1944.

Eisenhower first learned of the atomic bomb and its creation at the Potsdam Conference in 1945. He later recalled a visit by Secretary of War Henry Stimson, in which Stimson informed Eisenhower of the atomic bomb’s recent tests in New Mexico and the intent of the Truman administration to use it against Japan as quickly as possible. Upon listening to the contents of Stimson’s dialogue, Eisenhower voiced his opposition, both on moral grounds and the fact that the bomb’s use was wholly unnecessary to achieve victory.

He remembered:

“During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’ The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude.”

In 1963, Eisenhower once again affirmed his opposition to dropping the bomb, saying that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

William Leahy

Admiral William Leahy (1875–1959) was the highest-ranked senior military officer during World War II. Beforehand, Leahy served in numerous wars, such as the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, and World War I. Chief of Naval Operations from 1937 to 1939, and Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman throughout World War II, Leahy played a vital role in the planning and deliberations of the war. He is also remembered as one of the most trusted advisors to both presidents.

Leahy later contended in his memoirs that it was unnecessary to drop the atomic bombs and lamented the “frightening” prospect of this “barbarous weapon” being used in future wars:

“The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. … The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

Herbert Hoover

Hebert Hoover (1874-1964) was America’s 31st President. Wrongly blamed for the Great Depression, his presidency continues to be ridiculed by many historians. Although he held no office of prominence during the Second World War, his dissenting opinions on the atomic bomb cannot be brushed aside.

“The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul,” Hoover once said. He asserted that the Japanese were ready “to negotiate all the way from February 1945,” and “if such leads had been followed up” by the Truman administration, “there would have been no occasion to drop the bombs.”

In May 1945, Hoover attempted to convince Truman to drop his demand for Japan’s “unconditional surrender” and allow Emperor Hirohito to remain as leader. According to Hoover, this would have led to an earlier and less costly surrender. Hoover recalled a conversation with General Douglas MacArthur a year later, in which the latter agreed with Hoover’s proposition:

“I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria.”

Douglas MacArthur

Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964) was America’s leading general in the Pacific theater during World War II. In 1942, he was appointed Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific and was later awarded the Medal of Honor for his service in the Philippines, which he helped liberate from Japanese occupation in 1944. He was soon given command of all Army forces in the Pacific and accepted Japan’s surrender aboard the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945. In the aftermath of the war, he oversaw the Allied occupation of post-war Japan and led UN forces in the Korean War.

One day after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, MacArthur’s pilot, Weldon Rhoades, recalled that the general was “appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster.” President Richard Nixon too recalled how MacArthur felt about the bomb, saying that MacArthur “thought it a tragedy that the bomb was ever exploded” and “that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants.”

Similar to Hoover, MacArthur held the opinion that America’s demand for “unconditional surrender” unnecessarily dragged the war on. According to American Journalist Norman Cousins, MacArthur “saw no military justification” for the bomb’s use:

“MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”

By no means were Eisenhower, Leahy, Hoover, and MacArthur the only prominent individuals at the time to oppose the nuking of Japan. Paul Nitze, Fleet Admirals Chester Nimitz and William Halsey Jr., General “Hap” Arnold, Major General Curtis LeMay, and Lewis Strauss all disagreed with the unprecedented action taken by the Truman administration.

I recently stumbled upon an interview in the German newspaper Bild with Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban. The interview centered on the Russo-Ukrainian war and Hungary’s approach thus far in the conflict. Orban elucidated in a clear manner his positions on the war through the lens of peace and reality, two things that do not seem to be on the minds of his fellow European leaders.

Indeed, since the early stages of the war, Orban and his government have been consistent proponents of peace talks as a means to enact a ceasefire or end the war permanently. This position has created an evident rift between Hungary and other Western countries. What has further distanced Orban from other leaders around him is his ability to deviate from blindly following U.S. interests. In late February, the Hungarian government demanded a “full and proper investigation” into the “scandalous” attack on the Nord Stream pipelines, one of the only serious countries in Europe to do so. Additionally, Orban once advocated for a “European NATO” without the United States.

It is not hard to see why the West despises the conservative Orban and his “Hungary First” mentality. First and foremost, he wishes to keep Hungary out of a war that could very well destroy it. Unlike the leaders of the various nations surrounding him in Central Europe, he understands the Russian system and government. Orban also understands that the Western approach in Ukraine is a catastrophe destined for horrific failure. But above all, Orban has chosen to put the interests of his homeland first.

Subscribe now

The Orban Interview

Asked about whether the recent Wagner revolt had any meaningful significance to it, Orban said he thought at the time that the Russians would “manage it soon,” adding that he did not “see any major importance to that event.” Orban, contrary to most European leaders, said Russia’s response “was a signal of being strong.”

With respect to Putin, Orban stated that there was no legitimate threat to his power and that his popularity more or less remained the same. “He’s stable. He’s an elected leader of Russia,” Orban said. “And he is popular, and the structures behind him are rather strong. So we have to take the whole Russian complex seriously.” According to Orban, the prevailing narrative in the West that Putin is unstable is “just propaganda.”

As for the war itself, Orban declared that “nobody knows” how it will ultimately end. Underscoring the importance of the war from the Hungarian perspective, Orban said that “everything which is going on right now between Russia and Ukraine is bad for the Hungarians.” He added, “It’s dangerous for the Hungarians. We lost lives. Hungarian minorities are living there. Danger coming from the war is in Hungary’s neighborhood.”

“I’m always arguing for peace, peace, peace,” Orban stressed. Though his peace-driven policy defies Kyiv and its Western backers, Orban and Hungary have stood firm amid a constant onslaught of criticism and denunciation. “I would not like to appear as somebody who does not hope that the Ukrainians have a chance to survive,” Orban clarified. “But I am standing on reality. The reality is that the engineering of that cooperation between Ukraine and the West is a failure.”

Orban blasted the strategy of the West, saying that attempting to defeat Russia is a “misunderstanding of the situation” and “impossible” to achieve. “I’m speaking about the outcome of the war. And the problem is that the Ukrainians will run out of soldiers earlier than the Russians,” he said. “And that,” Orban continued, “would be the decisive factor in the end.”

Speaking on the need for the Ukrainians to negotiate with Moscow, Orban asserted that unless they bring themselves to the negotiating table soon, “they will lose a quantity of wealth, and many human lives, and unimaginable destruction” will occur. Orban stressed that “peace is the only solution at this moment.”

“But what really counts,” Orban said, “is what the Americans would like to do. Ukraine is not a sovereign country. They don’t have money. They don’t have weapons. They can fight only because we [the West] support them,” he added. “So when the Americans decide that they would like to have peace, there will be peace.” According to Orban, the conflict is ultimately “in the hands of the Americans.”

On diplomacy, Orban lamented the severe lack of negotiations and dialogue both at the beginning of the war and at present. “If there had been negotiations at the very beginning,” Orban suggested, “there would not have been so many lives lost” and Ukraine “would not have been destroyed.” The “war should not have happened,” Orban said. “It was a mistake of diplomacy” and a lack of communication that it commenced. Now, diplomacy “is the only way to save lives at the moment.”

The Hungarian leader further ripped the Western policy in Ukraine, this time on the issue of levying sanctions against Russia, saying:

So what we have done is just a failure. We said that sanctions will be good for two reasons. First, because they will force Russia to its knees. Second, they will bring us closer to peace. None of that happened. What kind of engineering of sanctions is that? So again, clarity: that’s what we need. Clear-cut arguments. What the target is, how we would like to reach it. Unfortunately up to now, sanctions are not a good way to reach our targets. That’s what I have seen.

Regarding Kyiv’s potential ascension into NATO, Orban rejected the idea. Ukrainian membership is “not in our mind,” he said. In addition, Orban declared that the NATO rules state “clearly that if somebody is at war, they cannot be a member of NATO.” Hungary’s firm rejection of potential membership for Ukraine in NATO has been yet another policy that has sharply divided Kyiv and Budapest.

In the end, “It’s not our war,” Orban asserted in the latter stages of the interview. “It’s the war of the Ukrainians.” He spoke about the immense influence the Biden administration has on its partners in Kyiv. The war will not end “until the United States wants to have peace,” he maintained. “We would like to save Ukraine. And the only way to save it is for the Americans to initiate negotiations with the Russians.”

Orban is winning. The West is losing.

Despite enormous backlash from the West over his Ukraine war stances, Orban continues to be a popular leader inside Hungary and a model for true conservatism. In truth, his antiwar position has made him all the more liked among his fellow constituents who want no part in a war with Russia. While leaders such as Joe Biden periodically jettison insults at Orban for these positions, Budapest remains unphased and sticks true to policies it deems to be in the best interests of the Hungarian people.

In the meantime, Hungary is a powerful dissident voice both inside NATO and the EU, consistently objecting to the craziness that every now and then emanates from those institutions. Although Budapest has sometimes relented on issues, it continues to oppose further escalation in the war and persists in being an invaluable voice for peace and stability. As of right now, Hungary is the only serious European country to actively promote diplomacy to end the war in Ukraine.

Victor Orban is a rare and sensible voice amidst a sea of warmongers. Similar to his stance on the migrant crisis in Europe, his “Hungary First” policy regarding Ukraine makes him unpopular on the outside and popular on the inside. As the West continues down the path of insanity in Ukraine, Orban has chosen a path based on reality. In the end, Orban is doing what any true leader should do, which is to put his country first.

In today’s discourse surrounding the war in Ukraine, you will often hear the incessantly repeated notion that Crimea belongs to Ukraine. Supporters of Ukraine often parrot this assertion, despite extraordinary evidence to the contrary pointing to the fact that Crimea never really was Ukraine’s in the first place.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government emphatically insists that for any negotiations to occur with Moscow, the latter must first completely withdraw its troops from all the territories it has occupied, including the Crimean Peninsula it annexed in 2014.

“We cannot imagine Ukraine without Crimea,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a recent CNN interview. “And while Crimea is under the Russian occupation, it means only one thing: the war is not over yet.”

Ukraine’s Western partners also agree that Crimea is Ukrainian territory. “Crimea is Ukraine,” national security advisor Jake Sullivan declared in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper. Although the U.S. has reportedly warned Kyiv not to attack inside Russian territory, the Biden administration has come out in support of Kyiv conducting operations within its “internationally recognized borders,” regardless of whether or not they are controlled by Moscow. This includes Crimea.

As the New York Times reported in early January, the Biden administration is backing Ukrainian attacks purportedly to leave the peninsula in a “threatened” position, in part to “strengthen” Ukraine’s hand at future negotiations with Moscow. Four months ago, senior U.S. official Victoria Nuland disclosed that “we are supporting” Ukrainian attacks on “legitimate targets” within Crimea.

In order to better understand the current clouds of controversy hovering over Crimea, we must first look at its history.

Subscribe now

A Brief History

For much of its history, Crimea has been a long-sought-after prize by various imperial regimes. The peninsula lies between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, making it a valuable possession for any expansive state. As such, Crimea was consistently caught in the crosshairs of the world’s greatest empires and their influence, which include the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols, the Ottomans, and lastly, the Russians.

Beginning in the late 17th century, the Ottoman Empire and Russia engaged in a series of wars for dominance in the Black Sea region. These conflicts between the two vying empires would persist for the following two centuries. One such conflict, the Russo-Turkish War of 1768—1774, ended with the Ottomans ceding to Russia the port of Azov and military fortresses on the eastern end of the Crimean Peninsula. In 1783, Catherine the Great annexed Crimea, thus incorporating the peninsula into Russia. Her subsequent victories allowed Russia to create its vital Black Sea Fleet.

In 1954, Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea to his homeland, Ukraine. Ever since the transfer, the legitimacy and constitutionality of the move have long been called into question. At the time, Crimeans did not ponder the matter significantly, as Ukraine was then a Soviet republic. As far as the ethnic Russian majority of Crimea was concerned, they were still part of the Soviet Union and united with Russia.

In January of 1991, as the U.S.S.R. was dissipating, the people of Crimea held a referendum on whether to become an autonomous republic with its own constitution unattached to Ukraine’s rule. Ultimately, over 93% of Crimeans voted “yes” on the referendum. Both Ukraine and Russia recognized the will of the Crimean people, and Crimea was once again established as an autonomous republic within the Soviet Union. But, as the Soviet Union completely collapsed later in the year, Crimea was passed to the rule of Ukraine, then a newly independent country.

The question of Crimean independence was ignored in the wake of the collapse. At any rate, Crimea should have joined the international community as an independent country. The 1991 referendum was abundantly clear: Crimea was not to be under Ukraine’s rule in any fashion. Instead, the peninsula was forcibly transformed into Ukrainian territory, and the rest of the world seemingly agreed with it.

In the subsequent aftermath, the issue of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and its only warm water naval base at Sevastopol became a controversial topic for discussion between Kiev and Moscow. In 1997, Russia and Ukraine negotiated the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership, along with the Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet. These treaties solidified the Russian naval presence in Sevastopol, divided the bases and armaments between the two powers, and protected Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

After a U.S. government-backed coup overthrew democratically elected Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovich in 2014, in what became known as the Maidan coup, ethnic Russians in Crimea were demonstrably livid with the removal of a leader they overwhelmingly supported. Moreover, the blatant anti-Russian mindset of the newly installed government was perceived as an alarming threat to not only Russians in Crimea but also to Russians in eastern Ukraine.

As a result, pro-Russian crowds took the matter into their own hands. They soon occupied government buildings, held massive rallies, and elected new leaders. Shortly thereafter, the Crimean Parliament unanimously voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops to Crimea to protect its large ethnic Russian population.

On March 16, a referendum was once again held to determine Crimea’s future. Significantly, 97% of voters voted “yes” and supported the movement to join Russia. Crowds in droves celebrated the result of the 2014 referendum, many of them flying the Russian flag and the flag of the Soviet Union. Two days later, Putin signed a treaty incorporating Crimea into the Russian Federation. “In people's hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an integral part of Russia," he said.

Though the referendum has had its legitimacy and legality questioned vociferously by the West, there can be no denying that Crimea is majority ethnic Russian and overwhelmingly pro-Russia. It is no secret that its people wish to be with Russia. U.S. government-funded sources, such as Gallup, have vindicated the findings of the referendum in 2014 through multiple studies and polls.

“Crimeans were and remain mostly in favor of the Russian annexation,” Foreign Affairs noted in 2020. “That popular sentiment complicates the West’s prevailing view of the seizure of Crimea as an aggressive land grab.” The West, led by the United States, nonetheless continues to erroneously misinterpret what occurred in Crimea as a “Russian invasion.”

Others are more sensible observers. “There's a reason why there was not an armed invasion of Crimea,” former President Barack Obama said in a recent interview with CNN, “because Crimea was full of a lot of Russian speakers and there was some sympathy to the view that Russia was representing its interests.”

In February of this year, NBC News traveled to Crimea to discern where certain individuals stood on the current war. One individual, 73-year-old Praskovya Baranova, said, “We will all put on uniforms and will go to the border to defend ourselves” in the event of a Ukrainian attack. “Her comments,” according to NBC, “echoed those of most people” they spoke to while in Crimea.

Share

The Importance of Crimea from Russia’s Perspective

NATO’s relentless expansion eastward after the fall of the Soviet Union caused great alarm for Russia. An understandable concern soon arose about Ukraine’s potential partnership in the alliance. One worry was that if Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia would be forced to dismantle its Black Sea Fleet, and Crimea, recognized as being Ukraine, would therefore become NATO’s playground. The Black Sea would transform into NATO’s Lake. In essence, NATO would possess dominance in the region right on Russia’s doorstep.

As Ukraine was offered a pathway to NATO membership in 2008, Russia became even more aware of the emerging threat to its national security. Once Yanukovich was overthrown in a Western-backed coup six years later, Putin felt the dire need to act immediately to protect Russia’s security concerns. Crimea was vastly important. As such, he secured permission from the Russian Parliament to send troops to Crimea to guard the ethnic Russian population and to back up the already sizable troop presence there.

By securing Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol and admitting Crimea into the Russian Federation, Putin more or less brushed aside a great threat from his vantage point. In the process, the Crimean people received what the vast majority of them voted for.

Disregarding Reality

When contemplating the history, past and recent, it is clear that the will of the Crimean people is to be with Russia, not Ukraine. The referendums of 1991 and 2014 prove this to be true. Nevertheless, the neoconservatives running U.S. foreign policy have abnegated the reality of the situation by continuing to dishonestly construe Crimea as Ukrainian territory.

There is a unique absurdity in that the people who lecture us the most on the importance of “democracy” and the “will of the people” reject these principles as soon as they become unfavorable to their nefarious goals within the world of geopolitical affairs. Indeed, the Western narrative regarding the war in Ukraine hinges on “preserving democracy,” and yet, leaders in the West push aside the indefatigable will of Crimeans to be part of Russia.

Sullivan and Zelensky’s remarks regarding Crimea sound all the more absurd when considering the fact that Russia will never abandon Crimea. Leaving Crimea would entail Moscow abdicating its Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, which is integral to the defense of southern Russia. Moreover, Ukraine does not wield the firepower or the manpower sufficient to overtake the heavily guarded peninsula, and even if it did, the population that resides in Crimea overwhelmingly despises Kyiv, creating even more of an arduous task for its potential occupiers.

Still proclaiming Crimea to be part of Ukraine, Kyiv and its neoconservative allies are disregarding reality itself. The Crimean people are firmly behind Russia and their support is not eroding anytime soon. That, along with Crimea’s long and expansive history, demonstrates an inseparable connection with Russia. Zelensky’s not-so-subtle promise to drag the war on until Crimea is in Ukraine’s hands ensures more unnecessary death and destruction for his country and armed forces.

On June 23, Wagner Group Chief Yevgeny Prigozhin released an unhinged and strange video in which he claimed that the entire reason for Russia’s war in Ukraine had been built on lies. Although he didn’t specify what these lies were, he went on to make rather odd and unusual claims. For instance, he said that various Russian leaders and oligarchs “plundered” the Donbas region during the time of the Kyiv-instigated war. Later on in his irascible rant, Prigozhin further criticized the Russian war effort, claiming that the war is being fought on behalf of Russian oligarchs and that the war has been fraught with the murder of civilians. Shortly thereafter, Prigozhin made a wild claim that the Russian army ordered a “missile strike” on Wagner troops, which, according to him, killed a “huge number of Wagner fighters.”

Despite the fact that Prigozhin’s claim of an attack on his soldiers was blatantly false, he and the Wagner Group began what they dubbed a “march for justice” to address their many grievances against the Russian state and, in particular, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD). More accurately, Prigozhin purportedly aimed to address his grievances against Minister of Defense Sergey Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, both of whom Prigozhin has had a longstanding feud with.

Soon after the “march for justice” was announced by the Wagner Group, Russian General Sergey Surovikin pleaded with the private military organization to “stop the columns” and to “obey the supreme commander.” General Surovikin, a highly talented general and military strategist who was instrumental in coordinating the battle of Bakhmut, was the first notable government official to condemn Wagner’s actions and plead with them to stop. “I appeal to the leadership, commanders, and fighters of PMC Wagner: Together with you, we walked a difficult path. Together with you, we fought, we took risks, we took losses, but overcome together. We are warriors. I call on you to stop,” Surovikin said.

If this was a coup, Prigozhin wasn’t receiving the answers he was looking for. At this time and until the end of his “mutiny,” he had virtually no support from any officers within the national government, military, or citizenry for that matter. Nevertheless, he carried on with his dangerous and foolish charade.

Without firing a shot, Prigozhin’s forces and tanks soon rolled into Rostov-on-Don, the scene of Russia’s theater command for all Russian forces. The images and videos of the many Wagner tanks sporting the red “Z” marking spread like wildfire throughout the internet. Remarkable scenes soon emanated from the streets of Rostov. The city’s sweepers carried on with their jobs as if nothing significant had taken place. Soldiers were walking into the nearby restaurants to order food. Citizens in the area posed for photos atop the tanks, hoping to cement their place in history. In some instances, Rostov residents were seen engaging in intense dialogue with Wagner fighters, no doubt questioning the absurdity of their motives and intentions.

In other tense discussions while in Rostov that evening, Prigozhin met with Deputy Defense Minister Yanus Evkurov and Deputy Head of the military intelligence directorate Vladimir Alekseev for talks. Despite there being no clear information as to what exactly these individuals discussed, the conversation was no doubt mired in heavy disagreement and confusion.

On the following day, June 24, news broke that a detachment of Wagner convoys was approaching Moscow. Prigozhin vowed to eliminate any obstacles in the way of his army’s advancement. Chechen forces were sent by Moscow to the vicinity of Rostov, where the rest of Wagner’s soldiers were located. At the time, it seemed as if a direct confrontation between Wagner and the Russian state was imminent. Soon enough, Wagner’s forces shot down two Russian aircraft, killing both crews on board. Ultimately, these killings would be the only fatalities in the “uprising.”

Amidst the confusion and chaos, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a video address from the Kremlin denouncing Prigozhin’s shenanigans as a “criminal adventure, pushed towards a serious crime of armed mutiny” and a “betrayal” of the Russian people. Putin called on the collaborators to withdraw their support from the “armed mutiny” and go home. If they didn’t comply, Putin warned that his response would be “brutal” and that the betrayers would be “punished inevitably.”

After a while, Wagner halted its advance toward Moscow. A deal had been struck between Putin and Prigozhin with the assistance of Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko, a man whom Prigozhin has known for 20 years. According to the arrangement, Prigozhin would have his criminal case against him dropped and be exiled to Belarus. Wagner soldiers who had participated in the events would not be charged and would instead be sent back to their standard operations in Ukraine. Those who did not participate would leave Wagner Group and sign contracts with the Russian military. Additionally, the Lukashenko-brokered deal included “security guarantees” for Wagner fighters.

The purported “coup” was over before it truly began. In the aftermath of these tumultuous 24 hours, Prigozhin issued a statement clarifying why he ultimately decided to halt the convoys destined for Moscow. “There were two crucial factors behind our decision to turn back,” he said. “The first was that we didn’t want to shed Russian blood. The second was that we marched to demonstrate our opposition, not to overthrow the government.” Further, he iterated that his goal “wasn’t to overthrow” Putin or “the legally elected authorities.” In the end, Wagner ultimately “turned around to avoid spilling the blood of Russian soldiers.”

Subscribe now

Prigozhin and Wagner

Yevgeny Prigozhin, first and foremost, is a businessman. He is not a military leader, nor does he carry with him any experience whatsoever on the battlefield. Intense and rambunctious, he wields an irascible temper, which more often than not gets the better of him. Prigozhin is also a man who undoubtedly has political ambitions, given the extraordinary number of times he felt the need to publicly comment on various political and military situations surrounding the war in Ukraine.

In 2014, he founded the Wagner Group, a private military organization ultimately loyal to the Russian state. Wagner first saw action in the Donbas after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. The mercenary force’s influence then extended to the battlefields in Libya, Syria, the Central African Republic, Mali, and numerous other countries. To put it mildly, Prigozhin was raking in cash from his newest business.

As the war in Ukraine kicked off, Prigozhin recruited tens of thousands of fighters to join Wagner, many of them convicts who were promised freedom if they served a specific amount of time on the frontlines. The battlefield in Bakhmut was where Wagner and Prigozhin earned their fame. Ultimately securing victory, Wagner suffered immense casualties, although Ukraine’s forces suffered far more. The Battle of Bakhmut was a bloody but decisive victory for the Russians, and the Wagner Group played a central role in that achievement.

Before the mutiny, Wagner was extraordinarily popular in Russia. Deservingly so, when considering the enormity of the sacrifice Wagner endured for the Russian war effort. Prigozhin was significantly popular among the Russian population as well, and he still is to some extent. On the other hand, Wagner’s boss became an annoyance and a headache for the Russian high command. Over time, Prigozhin became a regular public critic of senior Russian leaders, consistently criticizing them for either supposed incompetence or malpractice. An infamous incident in the weeks before Bakhmut was conquered encapsulates how Prigozhin’s antics surely irritated the government.

In early May, Prigozhin released a video in which he railed against Minister of Defense Sergey Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov for not providing Wagner fighters with enough munitions. In the video, he hurled a plethora of insults and profanities directed at Shoigu and Gerasimov as he showed a multitude of fallen Wagner fighters in the background. “The bastards that don’t give us ammunition will eat their f—ing guts in hell!” Prigozhin shouted.

In addition, Prigozhin threatened to pull his troops out of Bakhmut if Wagner’s demands for more ammunition were not met. According to various analyses, this was one of the many psychological games Prigozhin played to distract and confuse the enemy. Obviously, Wagner didn’t pull its troops out or exit the battlefield until victory was firmly in Russia’s hands. But the open hostility between Prigozhin and the MOD was very real.

The tension between Prigozhin and the MOD reached a boiling point when the latter ordered Wagner fighters to sign contracts with it before July 1. Putin endorsed the move. This, of course, was a direct threat to Prigozhin’s business, as Wagner was facing direct absorption into the Russian military. According to Prigozhin, the MOD’s concerted push to force Wagner troops to sign contracts with the regular army was at the core of why they marched on Rostov. That, along with his incessant pining for the removal of Shoigu and Gerasimov from power.

Share

The Reaction from the West and Its Allies

As Russia seemingly descended into a possible domestic conflict, Western politicians, analysts, and propagandists further obliterated their credibility by spinning the events as an actual “civil war” that was sure to completely destabilize Russia and produce regime change against Putin. “Russia is sliding into what can only be described as a civil war,” empire propagandist Anne Applebaum wrote in The Atlantic. “If you are surprised, maybe you shouldn’t be,” she wrote hours before the “coup” had ended.

Former American Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, too, predicted an imminent civil war. “So, there’s going to be a big fight,” he wrote on Twitter. Speaking on President Putin’s whereabouts, McFaul stated, “I am sure that he is no longer in Moscow.” McFaul said assuredly, “This is now a civil war.” For his part, McFaul later admitted he was way off course. “I was wrong about this. Eager to learn why,” he said sadly.

“The man from the Kremlin is obviously very afraid and probably hiding somewhere, not showing himself,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on June 24. French President Emmanuel Macron underscored “the divisions that exist within the Russian camp, and the fragility of both its military and its auxiliary forces.” Ironic, given that France is currently so dangerously divided from within.

Once the affair came to a close and Prigozhin stood down, Western officials took to highlighting the supposed “weakness” displayed by Moscow. “It was a direct challenge to Putin’s authority… It shows real cracks,” Blinken said in a CBS interview. “I think what we’re seeing in Russia over the last days demonstrates the fragility of the regime, and, of course, it is a demonstration of weakness,” NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg said. UK Foreign Minister James Cleverly agreed, adding that Prigozhin’s actions were an “unprecedented challenge to President Putin’s authority.”

After months of portraying Wagner as an incompetent and weak fighting force unable to defeat Ukrainian troops, pro-Ukraine Twitter accounts suddenly believed that the private mercenary force could topple the Russian state. In stark contrast to depicting Prigozhin as a murderous war criminal, they cheered him on as some sort of “freedom-fighting” hero who would be a welcome change from Putin, the man they hate above everyone else.

A Psyop or a Legitimate Coup?

In my estimation, the Wagner revolt was neither a psyop (Psychological Operation) nor a legitimate coup attempt against Putin. As for the idea that this was somehow a “coup d'état,” the notion that Prigozhin and Wagner could’ve somehow bypassed 200 miles on the way to Moscow unscathed through tens of thousands of Russian troops is absurd on multiple levels. Prigozhin had to have known that in order to oust Putin, he and his force would have to face the Russian Army and 140 million Russians first. Putin is incredibly popular in Russia. The Russian Armed Forces and the Russian people would never let Putin’s forced removal occur. This cannot be overstated. But, as Prigozhin stated, he never wanted to overthrow Putin.

Regarding the psyop scenario, it seems plausible in some respects but is ultimately highly unlikely. If this was planned, Prigozhin and Putin gained no discernible benefit other than possibly drawing out a few traitors within. Even that produced no valuable outcome, as virtually every domestic Russian leader affirmed their unequivocal support for Putin and his government. On the other hand, the entire situation reflected poorly on Russia. Prigozhin murdered Russian troops and seemingly got away with it by being exiled to nearby Belarus.

Prigozhin no doubt aimed to save his business and garner the attention of Putin. His insane approach, however, helped him in no way whatsoever. In the first respect, Prigozhin and his men “were categorically opposed” to the plans of the Defense Ministry to integrate Wagner into its ranks. Purportedly, their “march for justice” was to bring this further into the light.

As for garnering Putin’s attention regarding the removal of Shoigu and Gerasimov from power, Prigozhin aimed to enact these changes as well. A longstanding critic of the two, Prigozhin regularly lambasts them for weakness and inaction. Prigozhin, in contrast to Putin’s inner cabinet, is a man who wants to bring the war to a close and crush the enemy. He views Shoigu and Gerasimov as men who are misleading Putin about the war. Prigozhin previously called for a full war mobilization of Russia, underscoring his impatient attitude about ending the war. For now, no changes have been made in the Russian high command, and it was later reported that Prigozhin “dropped” his demand for removing Shoigu and Gerasimov while in the midst of negotiating.

That said, Putin handled the whole affair with a calm and reserved approach. Within 24 hours, the so-called “rebellion” had ended without much violence erupting. As Wagner’s forces poured into Rostov, and even after Prigozhin’s fighters fired on their fellow comrades up above, Putin exuded coolness and composure. In the end, Putin is more popular than ever, and Russia is more united than ever before.

In the early stages of the war in Ukraine, it soon became clear that the West had two options or choices regarding how it would conduct its approach to handling the conflict. The first option would be to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate national security concerns, recognize the blatant role NATO (the U.S.) played in provoking the conflagration, and scrounge up any and all opportunities to promote dialogue and peace talks to end the war and alleviate the suffering of the parties involved. The second would consist of continuing to fund the Ukrainian war effort to the tune of billions, sabotaging and thwarting diplomacy at every turn, and adhering to the longstanding U.S. goal to “weaken” Russia through Ukraine as a proxy.

Of course, the second option was the path the West ultimately chose. Ever since the commencement of the war, mounting evidence has shown that the collective West has destroyed any peace efforts to stop the bloodshed. Recent revelations add to that pile. On June 17, during a conference with an African peace delegation, Russian President Vladimir Putin displayed a never-before-seen abandoned peace treaty that Kyiv had reportedly signed in April of last year.

The “Treaty on the Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine” stipulated that Ukraine instate “permanent neutrality” in its Constitution. Further, Ukraine would agree to limit its armed forces in accordance with the guidelines set within the treaty and vacate all attempts to become a NATO member. Rather than pursue NATO membership, Kyiv would instead receive security guarantees from several countries. Additionally, Ukraine would recognize Russia’s control over Crimea and sections of the Donbas region, in which there is a majority of ethnic Russians who don’t wish to be ruled by Ukraine.

At the time, because talks were steadily progressing between the two warring sides, Russia removed troops from the north and around the capital city of Kyiv as a gesture of goodwill. As Russia “drastically” reduced its military operations near Kyiv, the U.S. sent then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky not to negotiate with Putin and instead “press” him militarily. Shortly thereafter, because of the immense pressure from the West, the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia were abruptly broken off by Kyiv and thrown “into the wastebasket of history.”

Recalling these events to the African peace delegation, Putin made known the details surrounding the agreement. “We did not discuss with the Ukrainian side that this treaty would be classified, but we have never presented it, nor commented on it. This draft agreement was initialed by the head of the Kyiv negotiation team. He put his signature there. Here it is,” he said, displaying the treaty publicly. Putin also expressed understandable skepticism concerning Ukraine’s willingness to stick to the outlines of any future negotiations. “Where are the guarantees that they will not continue to abandon such agreements?” he asked.

Subscribe now

Earlier Reporting Vindicates the Treaty’s Validity

Last year, Foreign Affairs reported that Russia and Ukraine “appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement” in the war’s early stages that would include Moscow withdrawing “to its position on February 23,” recognizing Russia’s control over parts “of the Donbas region and all of Crimea,” and Ukraine promising “not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.” The report adequately aligns with what has been recently disclosed about the discarded April 2022 treaty.

In early May 2022, Ukrainska Pravda reported on Boris Johnson’s visit to Kyiv to halt any further Ukrainian talks with the Kremlin. The Ukrainian media outlet noted that negotiations “came to a halt” a mere three days after Johnson visited the capital, reporting that even if Kyiv was ready for a negotiated settlement at that time, Ukraine’s Western allies were not. In October, Zelensky signed into law a decree declaring diplomacy with Moscow an “impossibility.” Ukraine and its allies have maintained their bitter hostility toward diplomacy ever since, even though the Kremlin always kept the door open for peace.

In early February of this year, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett disclosed that the West abnegated his own peace efforts early in the war. “There was a legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin and not to negotiate,’’ Bennett said. “They broke off the negotiations, and then it seemed to me that they were wrong.” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu added to the notion that the U.S. and others were deliberately dismantling peace in favor of prolonging the conflict, saying in April 2022, “There are those who want this war to continue” so that Russia “gets weaker.”

Share

Peace Was the Only Sane Option

Looking back, a negotiated peace settlement appears to be an infinitely superior option for Ukraine as a whole. Since that time in the early stages of the war, Ukraine has suffered enormous casualties, Russia has conquered more ground, and the Ukrainian war effort has deteriorated mightily. It is near impossible that Russia loses this war, irrespective of the many lies peddled in the Western media.

The much-vaunted Ukrainian counteroffensive is faring terribly for the West, as no discernible gains have been made or are likely to be made against the formidable Russian defense lines across the east and south. A large number of German and American tanks used thus far in the counteroffensive have been either obliterated or captured by Russian forces. As Ukraine’s military embarrassments mount, Kyiv will doubtless turn to conducting attacks inside Russia, hoping to provoke an exaggerated Russian response and drag NATO into the war.

Meanwhile, any suggestions for a ceasefire are immediately shut down by U.S. officials, who deem such a proposal as a “reward” to Putin that would only solidify Moscow’s “land grab” and give Russian forces more time to recuperate and consolidate strength. So long as the Biden administration remains in charge harboring this mindset, peace isn’t approaching anytime soon.

In the end, Washington had two choices earlier in the war. Either to simply recognize Russia’s authority over Crimea and the Donbas and Ukraine’s neutrality, or to have countless Ukrainians die, pave the road for Kyiv’s complete demilitarization, and make possible the eventual ousting of the Ukrainian government. As the West chose the latter path, Ukraine’s utter annihilation was ensured.

On June 8, 1967, the USS Liberty, a unique state-of-the-art intelligence-collecting vessel, was cruising peacefully across the Eastern Mediterranean Sea amid the Six-Day War, a conflict that involved Israel and its Arab neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The ostensible purpose of the Liberty was to gather as much information and communications as it could on both sides of the war, whether it be Israel or Egypt.

At the time, the United States was concerned with Soviet influence in the region, as the Soviet Union more or less stood behind Egypt’s Nasser. This, of course, put the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. on opposite sides of the conflict, as was naturally the case in various geopolitical affairs throughout the Cold War. In addition, the U.S. was apprehensive about Israel’s true war aims, worrying, despite Israeli assurances, that its war would entail further territorial pursuit on the part of Israel. More simply put, a land grab.

By all accounts, June 8 was a beautiful, sunny day with clear visibility stretching for miles. In essence, it was a near-perfect day in the Mediterranean. That is, until the Liberty came under attack — by Israel, America’s supposed ally. All of a sudden, Israeli fighter jets swarmed the American vessel, inundating the deck with a multitude of rocket attacks and cannon fire.

Astonishingly, the attack was not a case of mistaken identity but a deliberate attack upon a clearly identifiable American ship over international waters. Audio recordings of Israeli transmissions revealed that the Israelis knew all along that it was an American vessel. The Liberty on that day was flying a grand American flag that could’ve been seen for miles. The ship’s bow distinctly displayed the numerical identity of a U.S. ship: (AGTR-5). Furthermore, Israeli reconnaissance aircraft circled and observed the ship for hours before the attack. Survivors of the Liberty later recalled that they felt a sense of calm and relaxation at the sight of Israeli aircraft earlier in the day, as Israel was their firm ally.

As soon as the attack commenced, Israel purposely jammed both the tactical and distress frequencies of the Liberty, preventing the crew members on board from calling for help. Indeed, one of the first things Israel bombed were the communications antennas and equipment atop the ship. The Liberty was defenseless and utterly alone, unable to cry out for assistance.

Along with the missile and rocket attacks, the Israelis dropped napalm on the bridge of the ship. Additionally, the attackers destroyed the lifeboats on and off the ship, a blatant war crime, blocking any efforts to evacuate the badly wounded. Israel sent torpedo boats with the intention of finishing the ship off. The boats wielded machine guns with armor-piercing rounds, leaving hundreds of sizable holes in the ship. But that wasn’t the most brutal impact of the attack. Israel launched several torpedoes at the ship, one of which made contact and violently rocked the ship, killing an estimated 25 people on board.

The attacks ceased when 23-year-old Terry Halbardier heroically got off an SOS signal to the nearby Sixth Fleet. Israel, aware that the SOS had been made, stopped the attack and went home. As the aircraft from the Sixth Fleet scrambled to assist the Liberty, Israel rapidly apologized to Washington and summoned the US Navy Attaché, claiming that it had all been a “mistake.” Subsequently, the American jets were ordered to stand down by President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of State Robert McNamara, much to the dismay of the pilots who wished to aid their fellow countrymen. All in all, 34 Americans were killed and 172 wounded in the unprovoked attack by an ally. More than two-thirds of the crew were either wounded or dead.

Subscribe now

Cover-up

In the aftermath of the incident, the American government colluded with the Israelis to cover up the attack. The Lyndon Johnson administration, which was staunchly pro-Israel, paired with the deep-rooted Israel Lobby in D.C., was not about to let the attack on the Liberty potentially sever or disrupt U.S.-Israel relations. A total media blackout was soon enacted by the administration to prevent a public outcry against Israel.

Instead of heading to the nearest port, the Liberty was ordered to limp back to its alternate port in Malta to undergo extensive repairs and to remove the various body parts still held within. Afterward, the Liberty outwardly appeared as if nothing cruel had happened to it. Only then did the government allow others to view the vessel from afar. Ultimately, the Liberty was so badly damaged from the onslaught that it was unable to venture on any mission again. In 1970, the remains of the ship were sold as scrap for around $100,000.

Survivors of the Liberty were threatened with harsh fines and imprisonment by the higher-ups if they ever spoke to anyone whatsoever about what had occurred on June 8. One survivor, Phil Tourney, even recounted an event in which he and his wife were threatened by a Mossad agent to stay silent on the Liberty attack. Captain William McGonagle, the Liberty’s skipper, was later rewarded with the Medal of Honor in a closed, private ceremony in a naval shipyard away from the public’s eye. As is typically the custom, the president personally awards the recipient. In this case, Lyndon Johnson refused to take part in commemorating McGonagle’s heroism due to fears of upsetting Israel.

Terry Halbardier, the hero who saved the Liberty from complete destruction, received the Silver Star for his heroic actions 42 years after the USS Liberty attack on May 27, 2009. That it took over four decades to reward a hero who saved countless of his shipmates is highly indicative of the fact that the U.S. wanted to distance itself as far as possible from this “controversial” incident. In the end, the U.S. government never launched a full-scale congressional investigation into the attack.

Share

Why did Israel Attack?

After 56 years, there has still been no conclusive explanation as to why Israel attacked the USS Liberty. There are multiple theories, but none have been verified due to the extraordinary lack of investigation and scrutiny into the incident. One theory suggests that the Israeli attack was a ploy intended to drag America into the war by blaming the attack on Egypt, thereby enlarging the war in Israel’s interest. This seems to be the most likely scenario.

Another theory, offered by retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern, implies that Israel did not want the U.S. to know that they were organizing troops to seize the Golan Heights from Syria “and wanted to deprive the U.S. of the opportunity to argue against such a move.” Given that the Liberty was listening in on Israeli communications, Israel possibly had the incentive to destroy the Liberty to cloak whatever it was that they were trying to hide.

A Vast Lack of Justice and Truth

Israel meant to completely obliterate the Liberty and leave no survivors, as intercepted Israeli transmissions indicated. Moreover, the many aspects of the attack demonstrated that they meant to kill every life on board: shooting the lifeboats, the napalm attack, and the torpedo launches. They were well aware that the Liberty was an American vessel. Israeli reconnaissance aircraft observed the ship in the morning on June 8 for hours, and Israeli pilots confirmed the ship’s identity as being American. It wasn’t a case of “mistaken identity.”

In total, 34 Americans died and over 170 were wounded in the unprovoked attack, which ultimately turned out to be one of the most suppressed incidents in U.S. military history. Truthfully, the suppression worked. Most Americans have never heard of the attack on the USS Liberty, and many who do interpret the reality that Israel deliberately attacked the ship as a “conspiracy theory,” believing that Israel would never commit such an atrocity against its greatest ally. But the record proves otherwise.

On the other hand, the cold treatment accorded to the survivors of the USS Liberty by their own government is an outrage. They, along with their families, are owed the truth, yet have received not a speck of it. In the meantime, the surviving courageous veterans of the Liberty continue to push for answers.

On May 24, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced his campaign for the presidency, joining a plethora of fellow Republicans in the race. During his tenure as leader of the Sunshine State, DeSantis made headway by dissenting against the fascistic mindset of the tyrannical covid regime, choosing to take the side of freedom and prosperity in an otherwise totalitarian-leaning world at the time.

For that and other policies he implemented against the covid regime, DeSantis is rightly hailed as one of the most effective leaders in the world of conservatism. But there remains a certain murkiness surrounding his official positions on foreign policy. After all, a governor of a state is not to be concerned much about that area of politics. Then again, he has periodically stated his viewpoint on specific issues relating to American foreign policy, whether in his time as a congressman or as governor.

Indeed, a lot can be extracted from DeSantis’ recent remarks as well as his statements made during his previous role in the House of Representatives regarding his stances on Russia, China, and other foreign adversaries of the United States. Readers might be a tad bit surprised to find out that DeSantis edges closer to the Bush-neocon wing of the Republican Party than the non-interventionist America First wing.

Ukraine and Russia

In 2018, then-Congressman Ron DeSantis applauded Donald Trump’s toughness against Russia, which he construed as a stark deviation from Barack Obama’s stance toward the Kremlin. He faulted the Obama administration for not intervening enough against Russia in Crimea and Syria. “They did nothing when Russia invaded Crimea, made incursions into Ukraine, went into Syria,” DeSantis said. He further supported Trump when he sent lethal aid packages to Ukraine and delivered Patriot missiles to Poland.

On Vladimir Putin, DeSantis has had nothing but negative remarks to add about the Russian president. “He’s been a threat for a very long time,” DeSantis said in 2017. Furthermore, he implied that working diplomatically with Putin might very well be a lost cause, insinuating that previous presidencies have failed to reign in Putin. He then repeated the establishment line regarding Putin’s intentions, claiming that Putin wishes “to reconstitute the Russian empire."

Flash forward to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Four days after the commencement of hostilities, DeSantis lambasted President Joe Biden for his supposed “weakness” in allowing Moscow to invade, saying Biden’s lack of firmness “bred a lot of the disorder.” Although these remarks reflect a “tough,” neoconservative-leaning view on Ukraine, the Florida governor soon shifted his positioning as the absurdity of the Western role in the conflict became more evident.

Roughly a year after the beginning of the war in Ukraine, DeSantis slammed the Biden administration’s aid to Ukraine as a “blank-check policy” with no apparent aim. “They have effectively a blank-check policy with no clear strategic objective identified,” he said. DeSantis also criticized Biden for not paying more attention to America’s domestic problems. “He’s very concerned about those borders halfway around the world,” and “he’s not done anything to secure our own border here at home.”

In response to Tucker Carlson, who asked all GOP presidential hopefuls for their stated position on the war in Ukraine, DeSantis put forth a reply that was more in line with America First. All in all, DeSantis’ written statement was a masterpiece on what the Republican position should look like concerning the current conflagration in Ukraine. DeSantis argued that “becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” does not constitute one of America’s interests.

“Without question, peace should be the objective,” the statement read. Further, “the U.S. should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders.” He also wrote that F-16s and long-range missiles for Ukraine should “be off the table.” DeSantis noted that “these moves would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict and drawing us closer to a hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable.”

Additionally, DeSantis criticized regime change efforts against Putin, highlighting the real risk of a takeover in which a more “ruthless” individual would replace the Russian president. Moreover, DeSantis explained that attempts to oust Putin would unnecessarily stoke tensions and make “the use of nukes more likely.”

“We cannot prioritize intervention in an escalating foreign war over the defense of our own homeland,” DeSantis wrote. In truth, from a non-interventionist standpoint, what DeSantis articulated was a breath of fresh air and a constructive criticism of the Biden administration’s proxy war against Russia. That is, until he walked it back under fierce media criticism.

According to DeSantis, his comment labeling the Ukraine war as a “territorial dispute” had been erroneously “mischaracterized.” Again, he engaged in intense criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin, labeling him a “war criminal” who “should be held accountable.” To Desantis’ credit, he did stick with his position of no American troops in Ukraine, although that’s not why the media levied attacks against him.

Needless to say, that “war criminal” remark might return to plague DeSantis if he should become president and someday decide to pursue diplomacy with Russia. Put simply, it doesn’t help relations or attempts at peace. Trump, on the other hand, has understood this quite well, as he rarely, if ever, publicly vilifies Putin. Indeed, Trump criticized DeSantis for the “war criminal” comment, saying that it indicates a lack of seriousness and undermines attempts at peace.

Subscribe now

Iran

As a congressman, DeSantis was a firm proponent of imposing sanctions against Tehran and was a fierce detractor of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA). He described the JCPOA as an agreement of “plunder and deceit” and defended President Trump’s decision to exit the arrangement. When the debate surrounding the deal was heating up, DeSantis spoke numerous times on the House floor in opposition to the deal. In 2015, Desantis and Tom Cotton teamed up to denounce the JCPOA in a joint statement. Together, they wildly exaggerated the supposed “benefits” Iran would receive from the deal and what it would entail for Iran’s nuclear program. The two described Iran as the “world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism,” underscoring their rigid and hostile attitude toward the West Asian nation.

In his time in Congress, DeSantis was a vocal supporter of potential U.S.-led regime change efforts in Iran. “I think the more we can connect people and expand social networks there, I do think that this regime's days are numbered, and the more success we have in choking off the money and opening up the networks means their demise will be met quicker,” DeSantis said in 2018.

During the same year, DeSantis spoke again about his wish for regime change in Tehran. “What's going on in Iran right now is potentially historic, and if I could pick just one thing to have happen in the world, I don’t know if I could think of too many things that would be better for peace in our time than having those protestors overthrow this regime.” He went on to say that “we have to use whatever tools at our disposal that could be effective.”

In conclusion, a Ron DeSantis presidency is highly unlikely to spawn any peace talks between Tehran and Washington. As a whole, DeSantis’ stance toward Iran is mired in sustaining the failed policy of levying sanctions and an endorsement of the continuous pursuit of regime change efforts, both of which have failed to achieve the desired effect sought by Washington.

Venezuela

Similar to his stance on Iran, Desantis has voiced support for regime change in Venezuela, supported sanctions, and scolded attempts to normalize relations with the Nicolas Maduro regime. In a 2019 Facebook post, DeSantis thanked the Trump administration for “imposing tough sanctions on Maduro.” Like Trump, the Florida governor refused to recognize the government in Caracas as legitimate and instead chose to recognize Juan Guaido as the rightful president.

In March of last year, DeSantis slammed the Biden administration’s talks with Caracas regarding oil acquisition, portraying them as attempts to “legitimize” the Maduro government.

With Maduro gaining more recognition on the international stage, the U.S. is left behind as it maintains ample bitterness toward the Venezuelan state. More and more countries are beginning to establish relations with Caracas, much to the chagrin of the Biden administration. If the U.S. is to maintain its stubbornness regarding the situation, it will only further isolate America on the world stage.

Cuba

Early last year, when speaking out against Biden’s outreach to Venezuela’s Maduro, DeSantis castigated Biden for not doing more to “help” the protestors in Cuba overthrow their regime. “What we see with the Biden administration is basically thumbing their nose at people here in our state when they sit idly and do not lift a finger to help the democracy protestors in Cuba,” he complained.

Whether or not he supported direct funding or military intervention is unclear. Either way, his remark underscores an interest in “helping” freedom protestors in Cuba. “Help” in this case ultimately indicates U.S.-influenced regime change attempts. Just like his positions on Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran, DeSantis is a firm proponent of sanctions imposed against Havana.

China and Taiwan

When it comes to the subject matter of Taiwan, Ron DeSantis’ opinions are fairly analogous to those held by the Biden administration and the majority of Congress. In a recent interview with Nikkei Asia, we can glean quite a bit of information on where he stands on the issue. DeSantis upholds a policy referred to by many in Washington as “deterrence.” This is the supposed approach currently being undertaken by the U.S., purportedly to prevent Beijing from launching an invasion of the island.

“Deterrence” might mean one thing to American policymakers, but to Beijing, it generally means a provocation. In the eyes of the U.S., this policy entails arming Taiwan to the teeth and shifting more American military resources to the area, slowly eradicating the status quo that has been in place for decades. Of course, this embodies a severe threat to China, as its government has repeatedly warned that the ongoing path taken by the U.S. increases, not decreases, the probability of war.

Meanwhile, DeSantis is periodically briefed by a multitude of China hawks. As Politico reported recently, these de facto advisors include Gordon Chang and Elbridge Colby, the latter of whom is the fiercest advocate for direct American involvement in Taiwan should war commence between Beijing and Taipei. Although DeSantis has not publicly stated one way or another whether America should intervene, it is nonetheless concerning that individuals like Colby have his ear on these vastly important matters.

To DeSantis, China is “a significant threat” that America should pay far more attention to. Recently, he compared the CCP to the Soviet Union, stressing the need to contain its spreading influence. “If you look at where we are at this juncture in the 21st century, what the Soviet Union was to us, that's really what China represents in terms of the threat to the free world," he said. "In many respects, the Chinese Communist Party is stronger than what the Soviet Union was, certainly economically," DeSantis added.

In summary, DeSantis’ positions regarding China and Taiwan are substantially similar to the mindset held by the majority of politicians on Capitol Hill. He considers China the greatest threat to America’s standing on the world stage, believing that the U.S. should take a hardline approach to handling relations with Beijing. DeSantis’ takes on Taiwan, albeit not as radical as the Biden administration’s, nonetheless exemplify correlation.

Good Streaks

Over the years, DeSantis occasionally displayed messaging that was more akin to noninterventionism. “That’s the goal with a strong defense. It’s not to go get involved in a bunch of wars. It’s so you can actually stay out of wars,” he said in 2014. He vocally opposed the so-called “nation-building phase” of the war in Afghanistan in 2017. “I would not have stayed in Afghanistan for what we did,” DeSantis said in a recent interview with Piers Morgan.

Speaking on the Iraq war, DeSantis questioned whether the Middle East benefited and pointed out Iran’s success as a result of the war. “I think Iran has gotten stronger as a result of that conflict,” DeSantis said.

When the U.S.-funded proxy war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was heating up, DeSantis voiced immense concern about the various jihadist groups the U.S. was funding in Syria. “They cannot be counted on to vindicate our interests, which is why it is a mistake to subcontract out American national security to Islamist fighters,” DeSantis said in a speech on the House floor in 2014. At times, he even endorsed the idea of American neutrality in the Syrian civil war.

Share

Conclusion

In the end, despite occasional comments imbued with an America First bent, Ron DeSantis is no non-interventionist. He has expressed support for regime change efforts against Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. When John Bolton entered the Trump White House as a national security advisor, DeSantis extolled the warmonger with warm remarks, depicting Bolton as a “very strong voice” and “a very clear thinker.” It was high praise for a man who relentlessly advocated for war against Russia, Iran, North Korea, and numerous other nations.

DeSantis harbors effectively the same mentality as contemporary Washington on the topic of Taiwan. On Ukraine, DeSantis has been rather disappointing, at least in comparison to Trump’s position on the conflict. As we saw earlier, DeSantis put forth an excellent statement proclaiming that the war isn’t America’s fight and then later retracted it due to heavy criticism from the media. Unlike Trump, he has never endorsed the idea of pursuing diplomacy with the Kremlin to end the war for good.

Sadly, DeSantis is not the man who is going to end the war in Ukraine. Thus far, he has articulated no vivid strategy as to how his administration will handle or revise the current role America plays in the conflict. He has fallen behind in this regard, as notable candidates such as Donald Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have all endorsed diplomacy with Russia as a means to cease the fighting and prevent further bloodshed.

Ultimately, DeSantis’ record on foreign policy indicates no stark contrast with the GOP establishment. As his campaign carries on, there is a possibility that DeSantis might modify a few of his stances to better adapt to the noninterventionist mindset gaining ground within the GOP voting base. To be sure, we will hear a lot more from DeSantis on where he stands. Till then, we can look at his track record, which shows he isn’t that far from the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.

In one of my recent posts, I wrote about the drone attacks that occurred over the Kremlin buildings and the response to them by numerous former American officials alleging that the attacks were a “false flag” operation conducted by Russia against itself. As absurd as that claim sounded at the time, it nonetheless gained significant traction within corporate media circles as if it were what actually transpired.

In the wake of the attacks, a variety of former officials chimed in publicly to present their assessment of the situation. The attack “smells like a false flag operation on the part of the Russians,” former CIA Director Leon Panetta said at the time. Former General Jack Keane agreed, adding that the incident didn’t “fit Ukraine’s pattern of behavior.” Additionally, former national security advisor Robert O’Brien said that the drone attacks atop the Kremlin had “the hallmarks of a Russian false flag operation.”

As it turns out, they were wrong yet again. Last week, a recent report in the New York Times exposed the fact that U.S. intelligence officials, behind closed doors, believe that Ukraine was responsible for attacking the Kremlin. “U.S. officials said the drone attack on the Kremlin earlier this month was likely orchestrated by one of Ukraine’s special military or intelligence units,” the Times noted. This evaluation was reached in part due to intercepted Ukrainian communications that said that they “believed their country was responsible for the attack.”

The recent report materialized after a high-ranking Ukrainian official publicly admitted to a German publication that Kyiv is currently formulating plans to assassinate Russian President Vladimir Putin. With the recent drone attacks over the Kremlin and the botched explosive drone within Moscow weeks beforehand, Kyiv has increasingly conducted operations aimed at Putin. To state the obvious, these operations serve no strategic purpose in securing victory for the Ukrainian war effort and will only result in further escalation in the ongoing war. If Ukraine continues to attack inside Russia using American equipment and arms, the already high tensions between Moscow and the West will only worsen.

Subscribe now

Belgorod Raid

Last Monday, Ukrainian armed forces, under the guise of being a Russian anti-Kremlin group, conducted a cross-border raid into Russia’s Belgorod Oblast, attacking multiple Russian villages and residential areas. As the attack ensued, unfounded reports circulated within pro-Ukrainian media, absurdly suggesting that the attack was symbolic of a Russian “rebellion” against Putin and that Russian civilians within the area established a “declaration of independence.” Ultimately, the operation failed miserably, and the attackers were quickly repelled and forced to turn back in abject defeat.

Some analysts have described the Belgorod incursion as a planned distraction in order to divert media attention away from Ukraine’s devastating loss in Bakhmut. Alternatively, the foray into Russian territory could’ve been an attempt to achieve much larger goals. On May 13, The Washington Post reported on various documents from the Discord Leaks, consisting of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s private ambitions to conduct attacks within the Russian mainland. One of those plans included “moving Ukrainian ground troops into enemy territory” to enact military occupation of Russian villages.

What also makes the Belgorod raid noteworthy is that U.S.-supplied armored vehicles were utilized in attacking the Russian mainland. The Russian Volunteer Corps, one of many groups that participated in the attack, includes members who are openly neo-Nazi. Its leader, Denis Nikitin, admitted unabashedly that his soldiers used American armored vehicles in the raid. Another organization, the Freedom of Russia Legion, cooperated in the outbreak of fighting in the Belgorod region.

Although dishonest media reports attempted to spin the Belgorod aggression as an act of rebellion by discontented Russians against Putin, both aforementioned organizations that bear the name “Russian” are integrated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine. To put it bluntly, this was a Ukrainian-operated attack, plain and simple.

On the other hand, the incident was highly embarrassing for Moscow. The event highlighted peculiar vulnerabilities on the part of the Russians along the border between Ukraine and Russia. Even though these attacks have no military substance, they nonetheless underscore Russia’s susceptibility to being hit by Ukraine within its own borders.

More importantly, vehicles supplied by the U.S. were used by extremist factions within the Ukrainian military to attack Russian residential areas, which is a uniquely dangerous aspect of the incursion. Russian officials have repeatedly stated that Moscow blames the U.S. for such attacks.

F-16s to Ukraine

Recently, U.S. President Joe Biden announced his approval for various European countries to begin sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, the latest in a series of continual escalations emanating from the West aimed at damaging the Russian war effort. Despite private reservations from U.S. officials regarding the aircraft being ostensibly used by Kyiv to attack inside Russia, the Biden administration nonetheless plans to have Ukrainian pilots trained to fly the aircraft.

In response to American plans to supply the Kyiv regime with F-16s, Russian officials once again sounded the alarm concerning nonstop escalation. “We see that Western countries are still adhering to the escalation scenario. It involves colossal risks for themselves,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko recently said.

Truthfully, granting Ukraine F-16s will not alter the reality of what is occurring on the battlefield in Ukraine; rather, it is a move that only further entangles the West in the conflict and makes a direct confrontation between Washington and Moscow all the more likely. Moreover, it takes a considerable amount of time to properly train pilots to operate the fighter jet, sometimes taking up to multiple months for the training to be completed.

While U.S. intelligence officials exude a sense of worry behind closed doors regarding Ukrainian attacks within Russia, certain members of Congress don’t “care” if those attacks produce a vast Russian response. Asked if he was concerned that Ukrainians would use the F-16s to conduct military operations aimed at targets inside Russia, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) brushed off those worries. “I wouldn’t care if they did,’’ he said.

Share

Continual Escalation Eventually Leads to War

Nadler’s remarks are glaringly indicative of the radical, pro-war mindset harbored by many ideologues in Washington. That a sitting member of Congress explains flat-out his carelessness about the potentiality of this conflict encompassing a broader spectrum while at the same time supporting these escalations is truly remarkable. It certainly seems as if a large majority of policymakers on Capitol Hill are immune to realizing that the current conflagration between Russia and Ukraine could turn increasingly dangerous, not just for those two nations, but for the world at large.

Meanwhile, others are not so subtle regarding their view of the ongoing war and the carnage wrought by it. “The Russians are dying,” Senator Lindsey Graham said on Friday. “It’s the best money we’ve ever spent.”

Graham exhibits a “positive” view of the war, but Washington’s proxy war isn’t faring that well currently. Ukraine is in tatters. Untrained men are being thrown onto the front lines against a well-trained Russian army. Ukrainian teenagers are forced out of their homes unwillingly and are coerced into signing up to serve. Ukraine, after pouring tens of thousands of their best into the Bakhmut “Meatgrinder”, ultimately lost to a private mercenary force. Some estimates put Ukrainian troop deaths at around 350,000, while Russian losses are estimated to be much lower. According to retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, “Russian ground forces are now much larger than they have been since the mid-1980s.”

Meanwhile, the Biden administration and its allies hope for a “frozen” conflict, a situation they deem to be agreeable to NATO members in the long term. A frozen conflict is a scenario in which fighting pauses but neither side concedes defeat nor admits that the war is over. However unlikely this outcome may be, it nonetheless indicates that an increasing number of Western leaders don’t believe that Ukraine is winning.

Escalation, escalation, and more escalation. Diplomacy is nonexistent. In essence, that is the path the U.S. has taken thus far in Ukraine. The effusive hatred directed at Russia by various American leaders makes diplomacy and efforts at negotiation near impossible. In the meantime, the Biden administration continues to poke the Russian Bear in the side, constantly intimidating and provoking it to respond. Don’t be surprised when the Russian Bear mauls back. The damage could be irreparable.

Hours after two separate drone attacks occurred over the Kremlin buildings on May 3, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky firmly denied responsibility for the incident and alleged that his government has never conducted attacks inside the Russian mainland. “We don’t attack Putin or Moscow. We fight on our territory, we defend our cities and villages,” he said.

Zelensky’s assertion was false. Since the outbreak of war in February 2022, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have orchestrated numerous attacks on Russian territory, whether in the form of shelling, unmanned drone attacks, or assassinations of prominent Russian figures. Indeed, incursions operated by Ukraine within Russian territory have been all too common throughout the war.

Despite vocal apprehension behind closed doors from U.S. officials who worry about severe escalation as a result of attacks on Russian soil, Kyiv has nonetheless continued to oversee and conduct campaigns of aggression within the borders of Russia. Additionally, Zelensky has plotted more substantial attacks that have not yet occurred.

In contrast to Zelensky’s public demeanor toward strikes inside Russia, the Ukrainian leader has privately “proposed going in a more audacious direction,” as The Washington Post noted on May 13. The Post further reported that Zelensky has suggested “moving Ukrainian ground troops into enemy territory” to enact military occupation of Russian villages, as well as suggesting that Ukraine bomb the Druzhba pipeline, a pipeline that transfers Russian oil to Hungary.

Also, the Ukrainian head of state is “privately pining” for more advanced missiles from the West that can more easily reach targets past the borders of Russia. According to one document, Zelensky “expressed concern” to Ukrainian General Valeri Zaluzhny in February that “Ukraine does not have long-range missiles capable of reaching Russian troop deployments in Russia nor anything with which to attack them.” Due to the recent Discord Leaks, these plots and discussions have been brought to the public’s attention, exposing Zelensky’s behind-the-scenes plans to escalate against Russia. In the meantime, there have been blatant Ukrainian attacks inside Russia that deserve mentioning.

Subscribe now

Attacks Inside Russia

In December of last year, Ukrainian drone attacks struck two Russian airbases deep inside the Russian mainland, killing three personnel and damaging a small number of aircraft stationed at the bases. The first attack struck the Engels-2 airbase in the region of Saratov in southern Russia, while the second occurred at the Dyagilevo airbase in the city of Ryazan. Significantly, both military bases were located hundreds of miles away from the Russia-Ukraine border, showcasing Ukraine’s willingness to strike far beyond the boundaries of the current conflict.

Various air incursions into Russian territory operated by Ukraine have been a familiar occurrence thus far in the war. Most notably, the recent drone explosions over the Kremlin buildings in the early morning of May 3 — an incident for which Kyiv has repeatedly denied responsibility. The day after the Kremlin incident, there were several drone attacks reported by Russian media in the Voronezh and Rostov oblasts, including one on an oil refinery.

On April 30, four civilians were killed by Ukrainian shelling in the Russian village of Suzemka, a town located a mere five miles away from the border in Russia’s Bryansk Oblast. The following day, a train derailment caused by a mysterious explosion was reported by government officials in the region. While Ukraine’s bombing of Russian civilians is not as common as unmanned drone strikes on targets of strategic value, these incidents are nonetheless dangerous, as they have the possibility of provoking a deadly Russian response. That being said, Russian President Vladimir Putin has generally taken a calm and reserved approach in response to such attacks.

Just recently, four Russian aircraft were reportedly shot down in an incredibly rare occurrence, killing all four crews aboard. Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior advisor to Zelensky, without directly claiming responsibility, described the incident as "justice” and “instant karma.” Although the skirmishes happened much closer to the border, they still highlight the eagerness wielded by Kyiv to attack inside the Russian Federation.

Of course, all of the attacks mentioned in this article are not the only ones to have occurred on Russian territory. There have been multiple instances in which Ukraine has attacked Crimea. Most significant of all was the detonation of a truck bomb on the Kerch Bridge in early October 2022.

Share

Targeted Assassinations and Attempts

In August of last year, Darya Dugina, the daughter of the Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, was murdered in a car bomb attack in Moscow’s suburban area. Her father, of course, was the intended target all along. Later reporting in October by the New York Times exposed the fact that U.S. officials believed Ukraine was behind the murder. According to the Times, American officials privately “admonished Ukraine” for the killing, claiming that the U.S. was “not aware of the plan ahead of time for the attack” that ultimately killed Dugina. Moreover, Russia’s intelligence service pinpointed a suspect, claiming that “Ukrainian operatives had contracted a Ukrainian woman, who entered Russia in July and rented an apartment where Ms. Dugina lived. The woman then fled Russia after the bombing.”

Earlier last month, an explosion rocked a cafe in St. Petersburg, killing popular blogger and Russian war veteran Vladlen Tatarsky and wounding thirty others. Ukraine denied its role in the bombing, but it’s difficult to rule out their collaboration, especially when considering the ominous comments made by high-level officials in Kyiv. In addition to the killing in St. Petersburg of Tatarsky, prominent Russian writer Zakhar Prilepin was recently struck by a car bomb, but fortunately for him, he survived. In both instances, Russian authorities claimed to have identified a suspect who ultimately admitted to collaborating with Ukraine.

Initially, Ukraine kept quiet about its involvement in these attacks. But as of late, not so much. Without naming names, Ukrainian intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov admitted that Ukraine has orchestrated the assassinations of prominent Russian individuals. “We've already successfully targeted quite a few people," Budanov said. "There have been well-publicized cases everyone knows about, thanks to the media coverage."

A week or so before the drone detonations over the Kremlin, a Ukrainian drone laden with explosives of Canadian origin, supposedly to assassinate Putin, crashed near Rudnevo Industrial Park in Moscow. According to Yuriy Romanenko, co-founder of a Ukrainian think-tank, the aircraft “flew through all the air defenses of the Russian Federation” before ultimately failing to achieve its goal. Romanenko also claimed that Ukrainian intelligence officials were planning to murder Putin in the weeks beforehand.

“Putin, we are getting closer,” he warned.

Conclusion: Unnecessary Escalations

Reacting to the attacks on airbases in December, Budanov delighted in the incident. “I’m very glad to see this,” he said in an interview with ABC News, adding that attacks inside Russia will go “deeper and deeper.” Similarly, in an interview with PBS News in April, Budanov declared that Ukraine doesn’t “need weapons from the Americans or anyone else to get to the Russians. We have enough Ukrainian means and weapons to do this,” he said. Budanov’s comment dispelled Zelensky’s notion that Ukraine doesn’t have the means to conduct strikes deep into Russian territory.

Some might suggest that Kyiv retains the right to attack Russian territory. After all, they are at war. But these individuals ignore one major aspect with regard to Ukrainian attacks on Russian soil: the Armed Forces of Ukraine are mainly supplied and armed by the U.S. government, a nuclear adversary of Russia. Needless to say, the Kremlin can easily construe aggression on its soil from Ukraine as aggression from the U.S., as it already has. There is a unique danger associated with these attacks, hence the apprehension behind closed doors from American officials.

Seemingly ignoring the possibility that incursions onto Russian soil could instigate a nightmarish situation, the West continues to provide Ukraine with advanced weaponry that could easily hit the Russian mainland. Great Britain has supplied Kyiv with Storm Shadow cruise missiles that have the capability of hitting targets up to 155 miles away.

In the end, Ukrainian aggression on Russian soil serves little to no strategic purpose for Ukraine’s war effort. The Biden administration, meanwhile, is doing nothing to prevent these attacks. Rather, they are actively supporting them by continually funding and supplying Ukraine’s military. Disregarding the danger associated with arming attacks on a nuclear adversary’s soil, the West is advancing toward a direct conflict with Russia.

In recent weeks, and more broadly, over the past couple of years, an idea has gained significant traction among the foreign policy elite in Washington D.C. regarding how the U.S. could potentially respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan: bombing Taiwan’s Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) in order to prevent Beijing from seizing the industry.

The idea is deranged and outlandish, but in Washington, absurd policies and ideas thrive. Recently, Democratic congressman Seth Moulton advocated for bombing Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, painting the move as a completely reasonable approach that could deter China from carrying out an invasion of the island. The U.S. should be “making it very clear to the Chinese that if you invade Taiwan, we’re going to blow up TSMC,” Moulton said during a recent conference.

After receiving pushback from fellow panelist Michele Flournoy, of all people, the representative from Massachusetts responded by saying that blowing up the TSMC is a policy that is “actively being debated amongst U.S. policymakers.” Taiwan, meanwhile, is none too pleased with Moulton’s remarks. “It is the military’s obligation to defend Taiwan and we will not tolerate any others blowing up our facilities,” Taiwanese Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng said in response.

Moulton is not the only one to suggest this policy publicly. In March, former national security advisor Robert O’Brien called for bombing the semiconductor industry as well. “The United States and its allies are never going to let those factories fall into Chinese hands,” O’Brien said. A paper published by the US Army War College in 2021 promoted a similar strategy, suggesting that “the United States and Taiwan should lay plans for a targeted scorched-earth strategy that would render Taiwan not just unattractive” if Beijing takes over but also unimaginably “costly to maintain.”

Suffice it to say, the U.S. bombing Taiwan, a supposed ally, would open the eyes of the Taiwanese to what America’s motives truly are. On the other hand, as Flournoy briefly mentioned, the strategy, if carried out, would have severe economic repercussions globally as TSMC produces the majority of the world’s semiconductors. Whether or not the Biden administration would actually carry it out is a question of its own, but there is no doubt it is actively being debated as a serious approach if China invades.

Subscribe now

That this potential method is even gaining momentum and could manifest into reality is glaringly indicative of the fact that the U.S. doesn’t care about Taiwan. In the grand scheme of things, Taiwan and its people are but small pawns in the eyes of the American empire. Clearly, the notion that the U.S. must destroy Taiwan in order to defend the island from Beijing is utterly preposterous.

Currently, TSMC is in the midst of completing the construction of one of its newest semiconductor plants in Arizona, a multi-billion-dollar project that was announced in 2020, possibly due to pressure from the U.S. government. In August 2022, during Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, she held a lunch with the two top TSMC executives, no doubt discussing at length the need to expand more of TSMC’s plants into the United States. Days later, the CHIPS and Science Act was signed into law by President Biden, allocating $280 billion toward domestic chip manufacturing and research.

These moves could very well be emblematic of a more grandiose plan to relocate more of TSMC’s resources into the U.S. and, on the other hand, bomb TSMC plants back in Taiwan if China does carry out a military operation against Taipei.

Share

Expanding NATO’s Influence into the Asia Pacific

On May 3, it was reported by Nikkei Asia that NATO is working on plans to open a “liaison office” in Japan next year, permitting “the military alliance to conduct periodic consultations with Japan and key partners in the region, such as South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand as China emerges as a new challenge, alongside its traditional focus on Russia.” The announcement underscores NATO’s increasing role in the region to combat the influence of China and has the possibility of being a stepping stone to inviting key countries into the military alliance.

Mere days later, a Republican-led resolution was introduced in the House that called for Europe to conform to America’s approach on the issue of Taiwan. The resolution is a broader response to previous comments made by French President Emmanuel Macron in which he advocated for Europe to exercise “strategic autonomy” regarding a potential conflict with China over Taiwan. “The worse thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the U.S. agenda and a Chinese overreaction,” Macron said in the aftermath of his meeting with Xi Jinping in early April.

Despite these comments being one of the wiser things Macron has said in his time as president, the rabid interventionists within the House are furious with America’s ally in France. Rep. Max Miller (R-OH), the leader of the aforementioned resolution, lambasted Macron for his remarks. “It is astonishing to me that the French president would even suggest siding with a communist nation over a democratic one. Our resolution asks our European friends a simple question: Do you side with Taiwan and democratic values, or with an aggressive communist power that threatens the world order?” Miller said.

To be fair, Macron never spoke of siding with China. Macron only highlighted the need for Europe to stay out of affairs that have little to do with the continent, such as a conflict in the Asia Pacific against China.

Supporters of the recent resolution additionally endorsed the idea of expanding NATO to counter China. “It is incumbent on all NATO members to strengthen their involvement with democratic partners in the Indo-Pacific to ensure safety and security in the region,” cosponsor Mike Lawler (R-NY) said in a statement in support of the bill. Various passages within the text teem with language expressing favorability toward proposed NATO expansion.

Beijing, to no surprise, views NATO as a threat, especially after witnessing the catastrophe NATO expansion caused in Ukraine. “NATO’s continued eastward foray into the Asia Pacific and interference in regional affairs will inevitably undermine regional peace and stability and stoke camp confrontation. This calls for high vigilance among regional countries,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning.

Putting it lightly, NATO expansion into the Asia Pacific is a horrendous idea. Tensions are already soaring exponentially with the U.S. constantly ignoring the many warnings from Beijing not to interfere in Taiwan. A NATO-infested Asia Pacific will make conflict between the West and China all the more possible, just as a NATO-infested Europe made conflict with Russia a reality.

In addition to the unease over Taiwan, the U.S. carries on unphased in expanding the military to prepare for war. Last week, the U.S. announced President Biden will travel to Papua New Guinea on May 22 to sign new military agreements with the nation, as part of a larger strategy to combat the CCP in the region. This, in addition to Biden sending troops to Taiwan and building a multitude of new bases in the Philippines and Guam, is altogether revealing just how extensive America has recently become militarily in the region.

No Friends, Only Interests

Ultimately, Taiwan is not an ally of the U.S. but another proxy that is currently being utilized in the demented games of the empire. The comments made by U.S. officials discussing the possibility of bombing Taiwan’s semiconductor industry are evidence enough of this assertion.

If we recall the remarks made by officials in the months leading up to the Nord Stream attacks, U.S. policymakers were actively declaring that the Nord Stream pipelines would be obliterated countless times. Now with the TSMC, we have more or less a similar situation. If the U.S. does blow up TSMC, no one should be surprised. After all, various government operatives advocated for it.