Connect with us

conflict

How the Biden-Harris admin pushed Russia into war with Ukraine

Published

11 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Bob Marshall

I was … bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.… Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

In September, Vice President Kamala Harris stated several points at the White House as to how she would handle the Ukraine-Russia war: “I will work to ensure Ukraine prevails in this war.… Putin started this war, and … Putin could set his sights on Poland, the Baltic states, and other NATO Allies.… [S]ome in my country … demand that Ukraine accept neutrality, and would require Ukraine to forego security relationships with other nations. These proposals are the same of those of Putin.”

But these are the same Biden-Harris tactics and policies that provoked war.

Harris blames Russian President Vladimir Putin for the war. But the proximate source of the Russia-Ukraine conflict goes back beyond Putin to the breakup of the Soviet Empire and even earlier.

End of the Cold War

In late October 1989, the famed Berlin Wall as a dividing line between Socialist German Democratic Republic (GDR) and West Germany, called a “wall of mistrust” by then former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, was crumbling.

Obviously, Gorbachev, with almost 400,000 troops in East Germany could have stopped the reunification. But Western officials gave Russian leaders assurances there was nothing to worry about. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Gorbachev that NATO expansion would proceed, “not one inch eastward.” The next day, West German chancellor Helmut Kohl assured Gorbachev, “NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.”

The Los Angeles Times noted, “Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.… NATO’S widening umbrella doesn’t justify Putin’s … incursions in Ukraine or Georgia. Still, the evidence suggests that Russia’s protests have merit and that U.S. policy has contributed to current tensions in Europe.”

Documents at George Washington University testify to agreements made between Western leaders and Russian officials at this time – that western nations would not expand NATO to the East.

Yeltsin said to Clinton, “I want to get a clear understanding of your idea of NATO expansion, because now I see nothing but humiliation for Russia if you proceed. How do you think it looks to us if one bloc continues to exist while the Warsaw Pact has been abolished? It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner, they ask. I ask it too. Why do you want to do this?”

When Clinton spoke to Yeltsin in 1995, there were 15 NATO member countries. When Clinton left office, there were 18.

Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion

In 2016, President Clinton’s former Defense Secretary Bill Perry said, “In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years … the United States deserves much of the blame.… Our first action … in a bad direction was when NATO started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia.”

Former CIA Director Robert Gates, who also served as Secretary of Defense for President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, opposed the policy of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”

In June 1997, 50 former senators, retired military officers, diplomats, and foreign policy academics wrote to President Clinton about the problems and ill consequences of NATO expansion:

[T]he current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions.… NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability …

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition … [and] bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.

In 1998, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman asked George Kennan, who devised the successful “containment” policy to prevent the Soviet Union from achieving its goal of world domination through open warfare, what he thought of the U.S. Senate ratifying NATO expansion even up to Russia’s border. Kennan replied:

[I]t is the beginning of a new Cold War.… There was no reason for this.… No one was threatening anybody else.… We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so.

I was … bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.… Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

In 2007, Putin noted, “NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders … and what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact … NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on May 17, 1990 … said … ‘The fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?”

Fiona Hill points to 2007 when Putin “put the world, and certainly Europe, on notice that Moscow would not accept the further expansion of NATO.… In 2008 NATO gave an open door to Georgia and Ukraine.… Four months after NATO’s Bucharest Summit, there was the [Russian] invasion of Georgia. There wasn’t an invasion of Ukraine then because the Ukrainian government pulled back from seeking NATO membership.”

William Burns, now President Biden’s Central Intelligence director and former U.S. ambassador to Russia, wrote to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players … I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

Putin told Burns in 2008: “No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine. That would be a hostile act toward Russia. We would do all in our power to prevent it.”

In 2015, the German Der Speigel magazine interviewed Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, regarding the status of Ukraine in response to the abrupt change in the presidential leadership and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Brzezinski suggested that “Ukraine should be free to choose its political identity.… But … Russia should be assured credibly that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.”

More recently in 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Pope Francis said that the ‘barking of NATO at the door of Russia’ might have led to the invasion of Ukraine.… The pope … deplored the brutality of the war.… Pope Francis … described Russia’s attitude to Ukraine as ‘an anger that I don’t know whether it was provoked but was perhaps facilitated’ by the presence in nearby countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.… ‘In Ukraine, it was other states that created the conflict.’”

The caution of these experienced statesmen and world leaders is lost on President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

conflict

Energy Security in a Turbulent World: Canada’s Moment to Lead

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Terry Etam

Autos are different than maple syrup, which is different than oil, which is different than natural gas…Ottawa, get out of that freaking UN playpen, we have issues here.

Want an example of how upside down the whole world is? Consider these two quotes, retrieved from the web this past weekend, about whatever the hell is going on in Syria:

“There are posts on X discussing this event, with some suggesting that Assad might have fled to Moscow, though these should be treated with caution as social media can spread unverified information. Official state responses or confirmations from the Syrian government were not detailed in the provided sources… This situation reflects the ongoing instability in Syria, where despite years of conflict, the dynamics can still shift dramatically. However, without more concrete details or official statements, the full implications and the veracity of the breach into Assad’s palace remain to be fully assessed.”

“The Assad regime’s ongoing refusal to engage in the political process outlined in UNSCR 2254, and its reliance on Russia and Iran, created the conditions now unfolding, including the collapse of Assad regime lines in northwest Syria. At the same time, the United States has nothing to do with this offensive…”

Now isn’t that interesting, hey? The best and the worst of social media – a voice of calmness and reason, and an inflammatory one of accusations and denial. One statement urging caution and suspicion of social media; the other hurling accusations and the sort of militant and overly simplified claims that sadly seem to be the hallmark of extremism.

Here’s the funny part: the first calm comment originated from…  X’s AI machine Grok, which collates mass data from X, formerly Twitter, the “unhinged right wing platform” which many decry it as. The second inflammatory one originated from – the White House. In whom shall we trust…?

Chaos reigns supreme around the world, and there simply isn’t enough reliable information to leap to significant conclusions. Trump’s recent tariff announcements fit squarely into this mayhem, where the right answer to what will happen is: “No one has any idea where these will lead, including most certainly not Trump.”

It’s hard to catalogue it all, but here goes an attempt to capture some of the most pertinent brick-in-a-washing-machine situations, to possibly guide toward a plausible outlook for the energy industry. If that – a plausible outlook – sounds like a wet-noodle conclusion, well, it is. It should be quite evident that any sort of dead certainty is the realm of fools

Consider all this mayhem unfolding, particularly in comparison to the dreamy world of the 1990s when the Berlin Wall had fallen, and we were all flitting about with flowers in our hair discussing the “peace dividend”.

Today we have:

A global movement to advance the BRICS initiative (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), a more-than-significant group of nations that is, for the first time in centuries, looking to carve a future for its mostly ‘developing-nation-status’ participants that is, as India says, not anti-western but non-western. The aligned BRICS nations contain over 3 billion people, which is climbing as more nations seek to join, with a combined GDP of over $30 trillion. These nations do not share the West’s devotion to moralistic causes; they are hungry and want to eat, they want refrigerators and cars, and they want to stop burning dung in their kitchens.

Multiple, simultaneous wars have ensnared the weirdest alignment of countries that may lead to unpredictable outcomes. Let’s start with the poster child for bang-bang bingo, the Middle East. We have…Israel not just fending off but looking to wipe out terrorist organizations that operate in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Qatar (until just a few weeks ago, apparently), and Lord knows where else. All those terrorist organizations trace back to a central head in Iran, who is no doubt in Israel’s crosshairs. Based on this conflict, nations have been forced to align with the Israeli side, or the Iranian side if said nation is close to any one of the tentacles of the Iranian complex.

Now at the same time, Iran is supplying weapons to Russia, which is waging another war that multiplies the minefield of geopolitical relations. China is supporting Russia and, thereby, a de facto supporter of Iran, or kind of, and both support North Korea for some crazy reason. So, by way of association, anyone looking to join the BRICS group is in some way sanctioning what Iran and Russia are doing, including, as Trump called him one upon a time, Little Rocket Man. But Orange Man Bad and Little Rocket Man get along very well, even though this is structurally impossible based on history, and on last year’s ‘rock solid’ alliances.

Now consider that countries like Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam have either expressed interest in joining BRICS, or are on their way to membership (the United Arab Emirates has now actually joined). These are significant entities because they are significant trading partners with the US (and the US/west is fully dependent on China anyway for metals/minerals processing, a situation that seems to have yet to fall into the West’s consciousness. What is the West to do when valuable trading partners decide they’d rather join Satan and the Communists’ trading block, rather than the open-if-hectoring arms of the wealthy West?

In a new development, Trump announced 100 percent tariffs on BRICS if they did not make efforts to trade in a manner that would challenge the USD’s status as the global reserve currency. This is even though the US economy is deeply entwined with many countries in BRICS, and these tariffs would rock the US and its voters to the core (with more elections coming up in two years, all this must resolve quickly or boom, there goes the balance of power again).

Now, let’s look at how the madness has permeated the world of energy.  We have a new US president who announced tariffs of 25% on any goods from Canada (oil? Who knows?) and who also said he would prefer to see Keystone XL built, thereby increasing the volume of the product he is seeking to keep out via tariffs…? He has pledged to cut American energy prices in half and promote ‘drill baby drill” while cutting oil prices in half will decimate any producer’s desire to “drill baby drill”.

That’s just in the US. Look at what happened at COP29, where the host country’s president apparently used the conference as a networking event to cement more oil and gas production deals. Later in the conference, an OPEC minister took the stage – mere days after the UN Secretary General’s tiresome wailing about the mortal danger we are all in due to the combustion of fossil fuels – to declare that oil was “a gift from God.” Throw all that into a pot, and surprise, surprise, the final conference statement of progress read like a kid’s soliloquy on why his bedroom was such a disaster –but don’t worry, it will never happen again. In other words, just a bunch of jibber jabber, if for no other reason than to cloak that 70,000 freaking people jetted around the world to a remote location to study the suicidal impact of people flying around the world to remote locations. (And climate conferences manage, if nothing else, to land tens of thousands of people in every exotic destination in every corner of the world, all flown in, to shout vigorously about among other things, the ecological horror that is flying. It’s all too funny for words.)

We have Europe on its industrial knees, Germany in particular, because it shut down all its clean baseload energy sources (nuclear) and stopped buying its life blood fuel – natural gas – from Russia because, and here we go again right back into the swamp, of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. German industrial output is in freefall, auto manufacturers are bleeding red ink because they are forced to limit sales of the cars people want – internal combustion engine ones – because German policy dictates that electric vehicles must make up a specific percentage of sales. Despite Germany’s formidable engineering prowess, the simple observation that if no one buys EVs, no automaker will sell any ICEs – that’s how a forced EV proportion of sales works – and everything crumbles as a result. Volkswagen is looking to shut down German manufacturing plants for the first time ever. It is a crazy industrial policy.

We are now seeing a pushback against the rushed energy transition/net-zero-whenever agenda that is far beyond my imagination (and my imagination is big) because the inevitable has happened – it is hitting people’s pocketbooks. In the latest very big news on that front, the state of Texas is suing BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard for illegally conspiring to manipulate energy markets and drive-up costs for consumers. Texas Attorney General’s office issued a news release stating: “Over several years, the three asset managers acquired substantial stockholdings in every significant publicly held coal producer in the United States, thereby gaining the power to control the policies of the coal companies. Using their combined influence over the coal market, the investment cartel collectively announced in 2021 their commitment to weaponize their shares to pressure the coal companies to accommodate “green energy” goals. To achieve this, the investment companies pushed to reduce coal output by more than half by 2030.” The Attorney General argues that efforts to restrict coal power have led to increased electricity costs across the United States, resulting in significant revenue gains for the investment companies that hold shares in these firms. Additionally, the news release claims that these companies misled thousands of investors who chose to invest in non-ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) funds, aiming to maximize their profits. Despite their claims to the contrary, these funds implemented ESG strategies. Notably, ten other states have joined the lawsuit.

While that is all unfolding, Trump’s threat of a 25 percent tariff on imports of Canadian and Mexican goods could include oil and natural gas. Given that the North American energy market is hugely intertwined, and that natural gas is quite different than oil (gas is to a certain extent a two-way street – for every 3 GJ of natural gas that Canada exports to the US, the US exports 1 to Canada), there is much complexity here to unpack, and I’m not sure anyone is able to… There are many levels of analysis here – economic, political, geopolitical, retaliatory, defense (Are NATO commitments met? Silence from the Canucks), and there isn’t any indication that either Canada or the US grasps the full nationwide repercussions. Autos are different than maple syrup, which is different than oil, which is different than natural gas…Ottawa, get out of that freaking UN playpen, we have issues here.

The most recent feedback out of Canada’s tariff situation, the reports of the conversations between the two leaders, indicate that in the short term, the tariffs are unavoidable until “the US balances its budget.” No one knows what that means, and assuming the worst isn’t a bad idea because nothing is very stable these days. Having said that, tariffs on oil and gas are going to be chaotic, to put it mildly, if for no other reason than the US needs Canadian crude grades that it cannot produce in the short term, and because the US exports natural gas to Canada in significant quantities.

And that’s just the North American perspective. Globally, we are in severe turmoil as well. We have policymakers who cannot comprehend the very basic math involved in the quantities of energy the developing world will want, and at the very same time those Western policymakers are overseeing the maddest race ever to thrive in the AI and crypto mining spaces, both of which are power hogs of unimaginable proportions because each embeds an unusual feedback loop whereby the more power is consumed, the better these things perform, and the more profitable they are, so guess what happens.

Back here in Canada, some excellent thinkers are pointing out that this country needs to start thinking at a somewhat higher level on the energy file at least, such as Heather Exner-Pirot pointing out in the Calgary Herald that Canada should be looking at reviving Keystone XL and Northern Gateway. The article also discusses how we should be accelerating LNG export development. These are excellent points – we need to take control of our energy destiny to the extent possible. Trudeau’s rushed visit to Florida to plead Canada’s case was a stark and somewhat embarrassing display of exactly what the power relationship is here.

Maybe the US election will also be sufficiently jarring in Canada to cause a thunderclap in the hallways in Ottawa on the energy file. Canada is an energy powerhouse – oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, renewables where they work, it is a minerals powerhouse, it has world-class agricultural and manufacturing prowess…the list goes on and on.

The world is demonstrably uncertain, but in the chaos is opportunity. Nationally we have become preoccupied with trivialities and attempting to solve the world’s problems – from a point of view that doesn’t even understand them in the first place.

The US election is a wake-up call to Canada, and many other countries as well – stop playing games, stop acting as though elected officials and an army of bureaucrats are our moral compass, and get back to governance; put your thinking hats on like hasn’t been done for a while; focus on strengths; get our own house in order before lecturing the world. Do right by the people that voted for you, not your perceived legacy.

Few countries are as blessed as Canada with pretty much everything. Time to get off our back foot.

Terry Etam is a columnist with the BOE Report, a leading energy industry newsletter based in Calgary.  He is the author of The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity.  You can watch his Policy on the Frontier session from May 5, 2022 here.

Continue Reading

conflict

‘We Are In A Hot War With Russia’: Tucker Carlson Is Back In Moscow With A Terrifying Revelation

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

Daily Caller News Foundation co-founder Tucker Carlson released a video on social media Tuesday from Moscow, revealing how the U.S. government has not only severed all communication ties with Russia but also prevented Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from interviewing with Carlson and his team.

Tensions between Russia and Ukraine escalated last month after President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range missiles on Nov. 17 for strikes inside Russia. In a video posted to X, Carlson told viewers how U.S. involvement in the conflict has brought everyone closer to a nuclear confrontation since he last interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin in February.

“In that time, just a few weeks ago, the Biden administration, American military personnel launched missiles into mainland Russia and killed at least a dozen Russian soldiers. So we are, unbeknownst to most Americans, in a hot war with Russia, an undeclared war, a war you did not vote for and that most Americans don’t want, but it is ongoing,” Carlson said. “Because of that war, because of the fact that the U.S. military is killing Russians in Russia right now, we are closer to nuclear war than at any time in history, far closer than we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis.”

Carlson went on to highlight how, despite believing that someone in Washington, D.C., was behind the push toward nuclear war, he had uncovered that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had cut off “all contact” between Russia and the United States.

“We felt there must be someone behind the scenes in Washington working to make sure that this conflict doesn’t become a nuclear holocaust. But we found out that no, in fact, there is nobody. Tony Blinken, the current secretary of state, cut off all contact between the U.S. and Russian governments. There is no back channel. There is no conversation. There hasn’t been for more than two years,” Carlson said.

WATCH:

“Meanwhile, most Americans have no access to any perspective other than that granted to them by NBC News and The New York Times. They don’t know how close we are. They don’t know the Russian perspective,” Carlson said. “We’ve been trying for over a year to get that perspective out to American news consumers.”

Carlson also noted that he had been attempting for over a year to interview Zelenskyy but had been “thwarted” by the U.S. government’s involvement.

“The American embassy in Kiev, which our tax dollars pay for, told the Zelenskyy government, ‘No, you may not do the interview.’ You can talk to CNN. You can’t talk to us. So we’ve been unable to speak to him,” Carlson said.

“So we came back to Moscow yesterday to interview the foreign minister of Russia, Sergei Lavrov, the longest serving foreign minister in the world … and ask him, where exactly are we? Are we headed toward an unprecedented conflict between Russia and the United States? Is there any way to peel Russia back from the east, from the sphere of China, back in to the west?  Is that alliance permanent? Does the election of Donald Trump mean an end to this war, which is reshaping the world, the U.S. economy, the global economy and risking the life of every person on this planet? Is that possible? We just walked out of that interview,” Carlson added. “It’s absolutely fascinating.”

Talks of nuclear war surfaced after Biden authorized the use of U.S. long-range missiles for Ukraine, with Putin warning Ukraine about the potential use of new hypersonic missiles to target government or official buildings in Kyiv. Despite the signaling from Putin, U.S. intelligence sources allegedly told Reuters in late November that the decision to allow Ukraine the use of U.S. missiles has not increased the risk of nuclear war.

On Monday, Blinken headed back to Europe for what is likely his final high-level NATO meeting to discuss “priorities for transatlantic security, including supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion, deepening cooperation with NATO’s southern partners in the Middle East, North Africa, and Sahel regions, and preparing for the upcoming summit at The Hague,” the Associated Press reported.

Continue Reading

Trending

X