There’s no money or power in a non-interventionist foreign policy, which is why such a policy has been an ideological orphan since the 1930s. From Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., at lewrockwell.com:
Supporters of an aggressive American foreign policy like brain-dead Biden and the gang of neocons who control him reply to critics by playing the Hitler card. They say, “Imagine what would happened if the US stayed out of World War II. Hitler would have conquered the world! This shows why we have to fight against Russia and China now!”
Of course it doesn’t show that, and if we do fight Russia and China, we will destroy the world in a nuclear war. But we should look at their argument in its own terms. Should we have stayed out of World War II? The answer is clear. Yes, we should have, and in seeing why, our best guide is the great Murray Rothbard.
As Murray makes clear in his great book The Betrayal of the American Right, the left used the same tactics against those who wanted to stay out of World War II as the Trotskyite neocons do today. They called non-interventionists fascists, just the way they do today: “Still worse was the attitude of these new interventionists toward those erstwhile friends and allies who continued to persist in their old beliefs; these latter were now castigated and denounced day in and day out, with extreme bitterness and venom, as ‘reactionaries,’ ‘fascists,’ ‘anti-Semites,’ and ‘followers of the Goebbels line.’ Joining with great enthusiasm in this smear campaign was the Communist Party and its allies, from the ‘collective security’ campaign of the Soviet Union in the late 1930s and again after the Nazi attack on Russia on June 22, 1941. . . The opponents of war were not only being shut out from liberal journals and organizations but from much of the mass media as well. As the Roosevelt administration moved inexorably toward war, much of the Establishment that had been repelled by the leftwing rhetoric of the New Deal eagerly made its peace with the government, and swiftly moved into positions of power. In Roosevelt’s own famous phrase, ‘Dr. New Deal’ had been replaced by ‘Dr. Win the War,’ and, as the armaments orders poured in, the conservative elements of Big Business were back in the fold: in particular, the Wall Street and Eastern Establishment, the bankers and industrialists, the Morgan interests, the Ivy League Entente, all happily returned to the good old days of World War I and the battle of the British Empire against Germany.”
Neither party wants to confront or capitalize on the truth that most of the time most Americans don’t want to go to war. Both parties get too much money from defense contractors. From Sean Willich at antiwar.com:
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been yet another polarizing event in the news cycle. It seems like other topics being covered by the mainstream media that if you do not have the correct opinion then you are some sort of villain, in this case you are a pro-Russian propagandist. So, what is the establishment narrative? Well, it’s simple, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a threat to western democracy and America should be involved, doesn’t that sound familiar? Establishment Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals started ringing the war bells before it was clear that Russia was going to invade Ukraine. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin expressed how the Russian threat to Ukraine could lead to a possible hot conflict between the U.S. and Russia. Republican Senator Roger Wicker suggested that we need to leave the nuclear option on the table. Many politicians have voiced their support for Ukraine, some calling for boots on the ground, and many calling for President Joe Biden to do more to support Ukrainian forces. All of this has done nothing but escalate the war in Ukraine.
Currently, President Biden is increasing financial support for Ukraine. Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal recently claimed that Ukraine has received $12 Billion in weapons and financial aid since the start of the invasion, obviously not all of this has come from the US It does seem that this war is dragging out much longer than anticipated by the Russians. It is widely reported that Vladimir Putin thought that taking Ukraine would be an easy task. Now whether this is the case depends on what news sources you are listening to. Some reports have said that Ukraine is holding back the Russian military, other reports have depicted a much bleaker situation for the Ukrainians. Some reports have stated the Ukraine and Russia are close to a cease fire agreement. It is hard to decipher what is really going on in Ukraine.
Covid is the latest manifestation of a long running plan to use bioweapons and bioweapon response as instruments of control. From Matthew Ehret at unz.com:
A little over 20 years ago, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) conducted a military exercise that involved a “hypothetical scenario” of hijacked planes flying into both the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.
One year later, on October 24-26, 2000, another “hypothetical” military exercise was played out featuring an airline crashing into the Pentagon killing 341 people followed by yet another May 2001 Department of Defense “hypothetical scenario” which saw hundreds of medical personnel training for a “guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner” crashing into the Pentagon.
What arose from the smoke and debris of September 11, 2001 was unlike anything the sleeping masses or international community expected.
Being a neocon means never having to say you’re sorry—certainly not for your multitudinous blunders, and not even for those blunders’ innocent dead. From Matt Taibbi at taibbi.substack.com:
More and more, we’re told outright war isn’t just necessary and right, but the thing that will solve America’s existential problems
Robert Kagan, neoconservative writer and husband to Deputy Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, wrote a piece called “The Price of Hegemony” in Foreign Affairs last week that was fascinating. If I’d written his opening, people would denounce me as a Putin-concubine:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading.
Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe.
Kagan went on to make an argument straight out of Dr. Strangelove. Instead of doing what some critics want and focusing on “improving the well-being of Americans,” the U.S. government is instead properly recognizing the responsibility that comes with being a superpower. So, while Russia’s invasion may indeed have been a foreseeable consequence of a decision to expand our hegemonic reach, now that we’re here, there’s only one option left. Total commitment:
Putin has a way of highlighting the hypocrisies of Western leaders that infuriates them. Thus the nonstop hate. From Tom Luongo at tomluongo.me:
As we end this third week of World War III it’s becoming clear that the West’s end-game strategy is now regime change in Russia. As the money and weapons pour into Ukraine the Ukrainian Flag further morphs into the 21st century’s version of ‘Old Shoe,’ all around the Twittersphere.
Zelenskyy’s even been invited to the Oscar’s for pity’s sake.
Speaking at a press conference, Graham said “I hope he will be taken out, one way or the other,” adding “I don’t care how they take him out. I don’t care if we send him to The Hague and try him. I just want him to go.”
Should NATO be taking on Russia over Ukraine? Should NATO exist at all? From Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. at lewrockwell.com:
As you would expect from brain-dead Biden and the people controlling him, American policy has been moving in the wrong direction. Whatever you think about the situation in the Ukraine, one thing is obvious. It’s a crisis. Shouldn’t we try to stay out of danger? Instead, the US has led the way in imposing drastic economic sanctions on Russia, backing Putin to the wall. What if he gets desperate and uses atomic weapons? This could result in the end of civilized life on our planet. Is this what Americans want?
The danger isn’t just something I and other critics of American policy have conjured up. “President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday [March 5] that Western sanctions on Russia were akin to a declaration of war and warned that any attempt to impose a no-fly zone in Ukraine would lead to catastrophic consequences for the world. . . ‘These sanctions that are being imposed are akin to a declaration of war but thank God it has not come to that,’ Putin said, speaking to a group of flight attendants at an Aeroflot training centre near Moscow. He said any attempt by another power to impose a no-fly zone in Ukraine would be considered by Russia to be a step into the military conflict.”
The neocon warmongers brush this danger aside. They say that “we” have to do something to defend the Ukraine from an unprovoked Russian attack. But this totally distorts what is happening there. The Ukrainian government started things by moving against Donbass, a territory that declared independence and is allied with Russia. According to the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainians can secede from Russia but people can’t secede from the Ukraine. As Rick Rozoff pointed out in an article on February 2, “Two-thirds of Ukrainian army servicemen have been amassed along the Donbas contact line, Eduard Basurin, spokesman for the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) militia, said on Thursday.
Would a war against Russia have any better outcome than U.S. interventions elsewhere? The question almost answers itself. From Andrew J. Bacevich at thenation.com:
The people now gunning for a showdown with Putin were gunning for a showdown with Saddam Hussein two decades ago—with the same promises of a happy outcome.
Russian President Vladimir Putin meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Moscow. (Alexei Druzhinin / AP Photo)
While some wars may be necessary and unavoidable, a war pitting Russia against Ukraine—and potentially involving the United States—doesn’t make the cut. Yet, should such a war occur, some members of the American commentariat will cheer. They have yearned for a showdown with Vladimir Putin. The depth of their animus toward Putin and the hyperbole it inspires is a bit of a puzzle that deserves examination.
A veteran New York Times correspondent charges that Putin “has put a gun to the head of the West.” In an op-ed recently published in the Times, a former US national security official accuses President Biden of “sending the message that the United States is afraid of confronting Russia militarily.” “In an era when fascism is on the march,” a Boston Globe columnist warns, “much more may hang in the balance” than simply the security of a single country on the far eastern fringe of Europe.
A sense of impending doom punctuates the taunts: With unnamed fascists gathering outside the city gates and the very survival of the West at risk, the sitting president succumbs to cowardice. Whence does such overheated language come? What does it signify?
One obvious explanation is the unvarnished Russophobia pervading the ranks of the American political elite. With roots going at least as far back as the Bolshevik Revolution, disdain for Russia only deepened across several decades of Cold War. Although the Cold War ended a generation ago, this habitual animus survives fully intact, nowhere more so than in Washington. Demonizing Russia is an easy sell.
In international politics, most crimes, no matter how heinous, are forgivable. Even those perpetrated by the Nazi regime do not figure in day-to-day US relations with the Federal Republic of Germany. Nor, as it turns out, does the United States hold Ukraine’s collaboration with the Third Reich against it.
There’s nothing that makes the defense contractors happier and the campaign contributions flowing more freely than the prospect of a fresh war. From Ted Galen Carpenter at antiwar.com:
The fastest, most reliable way to foster bipartisanship in Congress (as well as the media, and the foreign policy blob) is to demonize the foreign threat du jour and then advocate a very hardline policy toward that alleged existential threat to the American republic. The latest example is how establishment types in both the Republican and Democratic congressional delegations are uniting to push the Biden administration into adopting an uncompromising stance toward Russia over the Ukraine issue, even at the risk of war with a country that possesses more than 2,000 nuclear weapons.
In mid-January, a bipartisan group of seven senators traveled to Ukraine to meet with that country’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and assure him of Washington’s strong commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s increased military deployments. The group consisted of Rob Portman (R-OH) Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). Shaheen said in a tweet that the meeting should have made clear to the Kremlin that “Putin will not be allowed to target our Eastern European partners and allies w/o consequences.” Shaheen had already introduced legislation, along with her colleagues John Cornyn (R-TX), Ben Cardin (D-MD), and the ultra-hawkish Wicker, to “expedite” U.S. military aid to Kyiv. During the delegation’s trip to Ukraine, Sen. Murphy told reporters that his goal was to convey the message that despite division in Washington politics, Republicans and Democrats are united in support for “serious, unprecedented crushing sanctions on Russia” if it moved against Ukraine.
There is still time to stop the many idiots within the U.S. foreign policy establishment from doing something incredibly stupid in Ukraine. From Eric Margolis at lewrockwell.com:
Amid surging tensions over Ukraine, the head of Germany’s navy had the courage to voice Europe’s fears over this totally unnecessary, contrived crisis.
In a speech to an Indian think tank, Vice-admiral Kay-Achim Schonbach proposed the Western powers ‘respect’ Russian leader Vladimir Putin and accept that Crimea would remain in Moscow’s hands.
The German admiral’s remarks produced a major uproar in Washington and tut tuts in Europe where hatred of Russia has become a state fetish. Most aggrieved were the British and Americans who deeply fear an alliance or at least entente between Germany and Russia that might undermine US domination of the continent.
Germany, Europe’s leading military force and mainstay of NATO, has hollowed out its military power. Thanks to unqualified female defense ministers, Germany’s armed forces have degenerated into parade troops. Armor and aircraft, once hallmarks of German military power, have become feeble toys, lacking in munitions, spare parts and capable crews.
Polls show Germans have very little interest in confronting Russia. Memories of World War II are still raw. Today’s Germans live in a nation that was 50% destroyed by US and British bombing. Millions of Germans come from families driven out of eastern Europe.
There is not a lot of sympathy for Ukraine’s current government that was installed by a US-financed and stage-managed coup in 2013-2014. Germany’s US-dominated media and government support Washington’s hard line on Ukraine but many ordinary Germans and French don’t agree.
The group primarily responsible for America’s decline the last thirty years calls anyone opposed to their disastrous designs traitors. It’s the pot calling the kettle black. From Glenn Greenwald at greenwald.substack.com:
By rehabilitating neocons and elevating them as thought leaders, liberals live in their framework. Thus are opponents of U.S. involvement in Ukraine deemed treasonous.
One of the most bizarre but important dynamics of Trump-era U.S. politics is that the most fanatical war-hungry neocons, who shaped Bush/Cheney militarism, have become the most popular pundits and thought leaders in American liberalism. They have not changed in the slightest — they are employing the same tactics they have always invoked, and for the same causes — but they have correctly perceived that their agenda is better served by migrating back to the Democratic Party which originally spawned their bloodthirsty ideology.
The excuse offered by Democrats for their embrace of neocons — we did it only as a temporary coalition of convenience to oppose Trump — is false for many reasons. This unholy alliance pre-dated Trump. In 2014 — long before anyone envisioned Trump descending down an escalator on his path to the White House — the journalist Jacob Heilbrunn wrote a New York Timesop-ed entitled “The Next Act of the Neocons.” He predicted, correctly as it turned out, that “the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.”
Unlike many websites, Straight Line Logic does not solicit donations. If you're going to lay out your hard-earned money, you should get something in exchange. If you like the site and want to support it, buy The Golden Pinnacle or The Gordian Knot, either as a book or download. The links are on the right-hand side of the page, in the Blogroll section. You'll be supporting the site, and getting a great book and hours of enjoyable reading.