Claire – I agree with most of the points raised in this post; however, I couldn’t let David Packman’s thoroughly disingenuous video go unremarked.
In the clips he showed of Tulsi Gabbard speaking, she says:
1. “There are 25 to 30 US-funded bio labs in Ukraine”
2. They are “conducting research on dangerous pathogens”
3. “Ukraine is an active war zone”
4. These bio labs could be “inadvertently or purposely breached or compromised,” spreading pathogens “throughout Europe, the United States, and the rest of the world”
5. Gabbard proposes:
a. “these labs need to be shut down immediately”
b. “the pathogens that they hold need to be destroyed”
c. “the Biden-Harris administration needs to work with Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and the UN to immediately implement a cease-fire for all military action in the vicinity of these labs until they’re secured and these pathogens are destroyed”
6. She then adds that “the US funds around 300 bio labs around the world,” engaging in research similar to the lab in Wuhan.
Pakman distorts her words completely.
He admits – a number of times! – that the US indeed funds bio labs conducting such research and that Ukraine does indeed contain such labs, and indeed, “if Ukrainian labs are hit, damaged, or destroyed, it’s conceivable that pathogens could be released.”
Here are his arguments against her:
1. “these are not American labs to shut down. Biden and Harris don’t run the labs” – she made no such claim.
2. He then veers into total speculation about “Why are they talking about this?” - “they are talking about this because they want to attack the US.” – there was nothing in Tulsi’s statement he showed attacking the US.
3. He claims Gabbard is proposing to shut all the labs around the world down – which she did not do.
4. He says categorically: “There are no US-run bio labs in Ukraine” – she never said they were “US-run,” she said they were “US-funded,” which he agreed with.
5. He continues to argue with the strawman of his creation: “why would we shut down every lab everywhere?” which, of course, she did not propose – but “it SEEMS to be what she’s calling for” [emphasis mine]
6. He makes a point that “these are not secret labs” – which may go to her words, “instead of trying to cover this up, the Biden-Harris administration…” [see the rest of the quote in #5.c. above], but I don’t know whether “cover this up” was rhetoric or a bona fide accusation. Let’s give him half a point on this one.
7. “If you want to argue, there should be no bio research done” – nobody is arguing that in the material he showed. He continues to argue with that strawman for the remainder of the clip.
8. “Tulsi has no clue what she’s even talking about”
Since he agreed with all the facts she actually stated, her proposal seems to be eminently reasonable, if maybe somewhat naïve. It is unlikely that an existential war can be halted in 25-30 locations to secure the bio labs; does that mean that we shouldn’t try, or at least take action to shut them down before they’re hit or taken over by the Russians???
You know I agree, Claire. I’ve been screaming it from the rooftops for two years now. The world is in a hybrid world war (I think since Russia stole Crimea.)
Biden really failed to frame this conflict properly for the American people, along with failing to give adequate aid to Ukraine and failing to prosecute Trump competently.
Biden surely has left us a mess that appears will get uglier. But I think also we should appreciate the massive pickle he’s been in. There are certainly some leverage points under the surface when the opposition and the enemy are in cahoots.
I’m convinced Biden correctly felt trapped on these long range weapons authorization. Putin messaged that it would trip a nuclear red line. Meanwhile Trump was on the campaign trail parroting Putin. So if Biden had gone thru with the authorization a year ago, Putin could have used a battlefield nuke or some other horror as a response and Trump would absolutely join Putin in messaging it was Biden’s fault. I believe this would have easily tipped the scales to Trump’s electoral victory, and turns out he didn’t even need the help. This was next level reflexive control. Sure helps when you are allied with your enemies opposition party.
Also, fwiw, I think Zubrin’s strategic analysis is a bit off. Unless Russia is engaging in some real drama and withholding a sizable fighting force, it seems unlikely it is in any position to expand military conflicts immediately should it prevail in Ukraine. Where would it get the fighters while continuing to occupy Ukraine? Russia would need significant time to regroup and rebuild and to digest Ukraine before it would be a true threat to conquer the Baltics and the rest of Europe. Russia’s conventional military has proven itself to be backwards and not-particularly-capable. There is widespread reluctance to recognize this, seemingly because those who understand the massive consequences do not wish to downplay them. But I think it only helps the case that Russia CAN and MUST be defeated now BEFORE they build back their empire. The idea Russia could immediately steamroll, say; Estonia with their capable military and what would certainly be unrestrained use of NATO weaponry, after floundering so in Ukraine seems doubtful. Just look at Russia’s economy - there is not that much more runway for them.
I believe this should be recognized hand in hand with the idea that Russia’s political warfare remains the primary immediate threat to Europe outside of Ukraine. This arena is where Russia has both capabilities and the resources to deploy them.
I think Russia would probably take some time to digest their meal and rebuild, yes. But where would they get the troops? Two obvious places: North Korea, which seems happy to send them, and Ukrainians themselves, who'd be impressed into the Russian military (as those in the conquered territory have been: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/russia-forces-ukrainians-occupied-areas-military).
Hey Claire. Great article! Do you subscibe to Damon Linker’s substack? He had a good one today trying to understand the Trump phenomenon in terms of the politics of masculine self-assertion.
I know of it, but don't subscribe: There's just a limit to the number of publications I can read (and afford), and I save my subscription money for the ones I really *need* to read to write this newsletter. Sounds interesting, though..
It's typical for a narcissist to surround himself with yes-men, because he cannot endure the shame of being wrong. I doubt it would do much good for Trump to have someone near him who was willing to speak truth to power.
Claire, as I hope you know, I hold you in the highest regard. I understand and sympathize with your revulsion against The Prince of the Golden Escalator. But I will add this: You don’t get him, nor what he stands for. I do, however, and though I don’t like much of it, well, so be it. It’s not as if the hapless Biden Administration has done better.
Clare - one carp and then I will move on - your turnip and his lefty cohorts let this happen; and all you did was write mild rebukes during the past couple of years while attacking Trump.
We need to be preparing for our war in the Pacific.
Yes, our war because Europe will do nothing to help us in the Pacific.
Recognize that allied obligations only run one way in Europe.
That means that we can send huge amounts of obsolescent equipment, to Ukraine, but few first line missiles.
We need to push the Europeans to get off their asses and save their continent.
They also have huge amounts of equipment in depots that they refuse to send.
Europeans need to spend money. We are mortgaging our country. Is it too much to ask Europe to do the same to save themselves?
I am making these tired points because of political capital.
Trump got a mandate from Americans who did not like what the Dems stood for. That is political capital.
Having gotten this mandate, you Lilliputians are trying to hamstring him and destroy his administration.
Way to get the American majority on your side.
Trump is looking at his shrinking pot of political capital (yes, lefties are doing their damndest to shrink it) and deciding where to spend it.
The lefties need to step behind Trump and give him more political capital (obviously for a price).
With that capital, we could accomplish tremendous things.
But lefties hate Trump more than they love their country.
America needs to stand together.
I know that it is fun to throw bombs - it shows how smart you are.
But bombs don't build anything.
Figure out how to induce Trump to spend his political capital the right way.
And by the way, lefties sneering at conservatives is one of the things that motivated us to elect Trump.
H.R. McMaster is a war-monger who reminds me of no one so much as Dr. Strangelove. He believes that the United States will only be successful countering Russia if we display real strength but fails to acknowledge the obvious fact that “experts” who believe what he believes have spent the better part of the 21st century squandering American strength through useless wars that we always lose but have cost our nation trillions of dollars. Perhaps the General can tell us which wars he fought in that the United States has actually won. If the answer is that he hasn’t fought in any wars where our country has emerged victorious, maybe his expertise should not be relied on.
Putting all of this aside for the moment, McMastsr argues that the NATO Alliance needs to be reinvigorated to confront the new Axis of Evil, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. It sounds good on paper but there’s one big problem. America’s allies are paper tigers. They’re useless.
Take a look at the big three; the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Could these nations be more pathetic than they are now? How’s the economic vitality of the UK, France and Germany? What’s the state of their military capabilities? When was the last time an important innovation emerged from their industries or their universities?
To make matters worse, look at the enfeebled leaders of these nations; coukd they be more impotent? Prime Minister Two-Tier, President Macron and Chancellor Scholz are despised by their own citizens. Scholz is about to be dumped. Macron neutered himself by putting a gun to his own head and threatening his own people to stop or he will shoot. In a few short months, Two Tier has gone from a reasonably popular figure to a remarkably unpopular figure. His polling has cratered right along with his nation’s economic prospects.
The Alliance that McMaster wants to reinvigorate is toast, not because of anything Biden has done and not because of anything Trump might do. Our European allies made a conscious decision to commit suicide. They’ve succeeded. They’re like a pathetic victim who’s slit his own wrists and are sitting in a bathtub filled with warm water while they bleed out.
McMaster’s suggestion that a reinvigorated America and a reinvigorated Europe confront Russia and China together is a losing strategy because nothing can reinvigorate America’s European allies.
It’s already happening. What’s your opinion about the status of the European big three? Do you think that our allies are in any shape to provide the United States with substantial and consequential assistance as we take on Russia, China, Iran and North Korea? Would you feel confident being in a foxhole along with Macron, Scholz and Two Tier?
You want the United States to reeducate itself to being the leader of the free-world. Can we really be a leader if we have followers as pathetic as our big three European allies? Do you feel confident that Macron, Scholz (or any plausible replacement) and Starmer are the type of leaders we want on our side as we confront Putin and Shi?
You know what I think; I believe they’re pathetic. Why don’t you tell us what you think?
All true but so what? Does that provide any evidence that they’re competent allies?
McMaster highlights the importance of deterrence. Given the feeble state of the European economies how durable can their support be? Russia’s economy is feeble too but all of the available evidence suggests that the Russian people don’t care. Russians have dealt with a feeble economy for decades if not centuries. The French on the other hand became apoplectic when Macron wanted to raise the retirement age decades from now. That doesn’t leave much left over for defense spending, does it?
What’s the status of the British army and navy? What’s the status of the French armed forces? Do you have any confidence that given an armed conflict, the German army would do anything but cut and run and quickly sue for peace?
You’re an expert on Margaret Thatcher and you’re also a fan. Which current European leader most reminds you of Margaret Thatcher? Is it Two Tier? What about Macron? I can’t believe Scholz puts you in mind of Thatcher. As for Metz, admittedly, it’s too soon to tell.
The United States won the Cold War with European allies who were at least modestly competent. If there’s to be a new Cold War or God-forbid, a hot war, doesn’t the United States need capable allies?
In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that the UK, France and Germany are competent? If not, do you expect Americans to carry the full load yet again? Are Americans supposed to underwrite the bulk of the enormous costs of defending Europe until the end of time while the Europeans continue to be free-loaders?
"Are Americans supposed to underwrite the bulk of the enormous costs of defending Europe until the end of time while the Europeans continue to be free-loaders?" Suppose we did. It would be better by far, and less costly for us, than living in the world you propose. But fortunately, this is a completely nonsensical question: once again, Europe has outspent us in Ukraine's defense.
Europe has modestly outspent the United States providing aid to Ukraine. I’m not sure why you think this is such an accomplishment. After all for the Europeans, Ukraine is next door. For the United States it’s thousands of miles away. None of this is to suggest that the United States shouldn’t provide substantial support for Ukraine; after all, our nation helped instigate the attack and vetoed all the proposed compromises at the beginning of the conflict. We also induced Ukraine to give up all of its nuclear weapons and made promises to guarantee its security. But modestly outspending the United States when it comes to Ukraine seems like the least the Europeans can do.
I can’t help but notice that you won’t address European weakness and fecklessness when it comes to military strength and economic vitality. Do you really think that the fact that Europe has provided slightly more aid to Ukraine than the United States supplies all the evidence that’s needed that the Europeans are good allies?
You’re ignoring McMaster’s admonition in the essay that you posted. He emphasized the importance of deterrence and suggested that deterrence flows from strength. The United States is strong. Trump might request even more funding for the DOD. The Europeans are weak. While many European nations have modestly increased defense spending, their defense spending is a pittance compared to the United States. Their military readiness is shockingly bad. Britain, France and Germany are bad allies. The fact that you can’t address this reality speaks volumes.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question, Claire. If Trump were to threaten to pull the United States out of NATO unless NATO member countries exited the Rome Statute (ICC) what do you suppose Starmer, Macron and Scholz would do? Would they repudiate the ICC or would they accept the destruction of NATO?
We will probably never know although I hope we will find out. My guess is that Starmer, Macron and Scholz would acquiesce to the destruction of NATO before they would accommodate themselves to the evisceration of the ICC. That’s what happens when you fall victim to the insidious mind virus called globalism.
Claire – I agree with most of the points raised in this post; however, I couldn’t let David Packman’s thoroughly disingenuous video go unremarked.
In the clips he showed of Tulsi Gabbard speaking, she says:
1. “There are 25 to 30 US-funded bio labs in Ukraine”
2. They are “conducting research on dangerous pathogens”
3. “Ukraine is an active war zone”
4. These bio labs could be “inadvertently or purposely breached or compromised,” spreading pathogens “throughout Europe, the United States, and the rest of the world”
5. Gabbard proposes:
a. “these labs need to be shut down immediately”
b. “the pathogens that they hold need to be destroyed”
c. “the Biden-Harris administration needs to work with Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and the UN to immediately implement a cease-fire for all military action in the vicinity of these labs until they’re secured and these pathogens are destroyed”
6. She then adds that “the US funds around 300 bio labs around the world,” engaging in research similar to the lab in Wuhan.
Pakman distorts her words completely.
He admits – a number of times! – that the US indeed funds bio labs conducting such research and that Ukraine does indeed contain such labs, and indeed, “if Ukrainian labs are hit, damaged, or destroyed, it’s conceivable that pathogens could be released.”
Here are his arguments against her:
1. “these are not American labs to shut down. Biden and Harris don’t run the labs” – she made no such claim.
2. He then veers into total speculation about “Why are they talking about this?” - “they are talking about this because they want to attack the US.” – there was nothing in Tulsi’s statement he showed attacking the US.
3. He claims Gabbard is proposing to shut all the labs around the world down – which she did not do.
4. He says categorically: “There are no US-run bio labs in Ukraine” – she never said they were “US-run,” she said they were “US-funded,” which he agreed with.
5. He continues to argue with the strawman of his creation: “why would we shut down every lab everywhere?” which, of course, she did not propose – but “it SEEMS to be what she’s calling for” [emphasis mine]
6. He makes a point that “these are not secret labs” – which may go to her words, “instead of trying to cover this up, the Biden-Harris administration…” [see the rest of the quote in #5.c. above], but I don’t know whether “cover this up” was rhetoric or a bona fide accusation. Let’s give him half a point on this one.
7. “If you want to argue, there should be no bio research done” – nobody is arguing that in the material he showed. He continues to argue with that strawman for the remainder of the clip.
8. “Tulsi has no clue what she’s even talking about”
Since he agreed with all the facts she actually stated, her proposal seems to be eminently reasonable, if maybe somewhat naïve. It is unlikely that an existential war can be halted in 25-30 locations to secure the bio labs; does that mean that we shouldn’t try, or at least take action to shut them down before they’re hit or taken over by the Russians???
You know I agree, Claire. I’ve been screaming it from the rooftops for two years now. The world is in a hybrid world war (I think since Russia stole Crimea.)
Biden really failed to frame this conflict properly for the American people, along with failing to give adequate aid to Ukraine and failing to prosecute Trump competently.
Biden surely has left us a mess that appears will get uglier. But I think also we should appreciate the massive pickle he’s been in. There are certainly some leverage points under the surface when the opposition and the enemy are in cahoots.
I’m convinced Biden correctly felt trapped on these long range weapons authorization. Putin messaged that it would trip a nuclear red line. Meanwhile Trump was on the campaign trail parroting Putin. So if Biden had gone thru with the authorization a year ago, Putin could have used a battlefield nuke or some other horror as a response and Trump would absolutely join Putin in messaging it was Biden’s fault. I believe this would have easily tipped the scales to Trump’s electoral victory, and turns out he didn’t even need the help. This was next level reflexive control. Sure helps when you are allied with your enemies opposition party.
Also, fwiw, I think Zubrin’s strategic analysis is a bit off. Unless Russia is engaging in some real drama and withholding a sizable fighting force, it seems unlikely it is in any position to expand military conflicts immediately should it prevail in Ukraine. Where would it get the fighters while continuing to occupy Ukraine? Russia would need significant time to regroup and rebuild and to digest Ukraine before it would be a true threat to conquer the Baltics and the rest of Europe. Russia’s conventional military has proven itself to be backwards and not-particularly-capable. There is widespread reluctance to recognize this, seemingly because those who understand the massive consequences do not wish to downplay them. But I think it only helps the case that Russia CAN and MUST be defeated now BEFORE they build back their empire. The idea Russia could immediately steamroll, say; Estonia with their capable military and what would certainly be unrestrained use of NATO weaponry, after floundering so in Ukraine seems doubtful. Just look at Russia’s economy - there is not that much more runway for them.
I believe this should be recognized hand in hand with the idea that Russia’s political warfare remains the primary immediate threat to Europe outside of Ukraine. This arena is where Russia has both capabilities and the resources to deploy them.
Thanks as always for the excellent insights.
I think Russia would probably take some time to digest their meal and rebuild, yes. But where would they get the troops? Two obvious places: North Korea, which seems happy to send them, and Ukrainians themselves, who'd be impressed into the Russian military (as those in the conquered territory have been: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/russia-forces-ukrainians-occupied-areas-military).
Hey Claire. Great article! Do you subscibe to Damon Linker’s substack? He had a good one today trying to understand the Trump phenomenon in terms of the politics of masculine self-assertion.
I know of it, but don't subscribe: There's just a limit to the number of publications I can read (and afford), and I save my subscription money for the ones I really *need* to read to write this newsletter. Sounds interesting, though..
It's typical for a narcissist to surround himself with yes-men, because he cannot endure the shame of being wrong. I doubt it would do much good for Trump to have someone near him who was willing to speak truth to power.
It did, in his first term. They stopped him from doing a huge number of stupid things.
Claire, as I hope you know, I hold you in the highest regard. I understand and sympathize with your revulsion against The Prince of the Golden Escalator. But I will add this: You don’t get him, nor what he stands for. I do, however, and though I don’t like much of it, well, so be it. It’s not as if the hapless Biden Administration has done better.
Yes!
You are saying (a lot of) what needs to be said.
Clare - one carp and then I will move on - your turnip and his lefty cohorts let this happen; and all you did was write mild rebukes during the past couple of years while attacking Trump.
We need to be preparing for our war in the Pacific.
Yes, our war because Europe will do nothing to help us in the Pacific.
Recognize that allied obligations only run one way in Europe.
That means that we can send huge amounts of obsolescent equipment, to Ukraine, but few first line missiles.
We need to push the Europeans to get off their asses and save their continent.
They also have huge amounts of equipment in depots that they refuse to send.
Europeans need to spend money. We are mortgaging our country. Is it too much to ask Europe to do the same to save themselves?
I am making these tired points because of political capital.
Trump got a mandate from Americans who did not like what the Dems stood for. That is political capital.
Having gotten this mandate, you Lilliputians are trying to hamstring him and destroy his administration.
Way to get the American majority on your side.
Trump is looking at his shrinking pot of political capital (yes, lefties are doing their damndest to shrink it) and deciding where to spend it.
The lefties need to step behind Trump and give him more political capital (obviously for a price).
With that capital, we could accomplish tremendous things.
But lefties hate Trump more than they love their country.
America needs to stand together.
I know that it is fun to throw bombs - it shows how smart you are.
But bombs don't build anything.
Figure out how to induce Trump to spend his political capital the right way.
And by the way, lefties sneering at conservatives is one of the things that motivated us to elect Trump.
If you think what I've been writing about the Biden Administration is a "mild rebuke," I don't know what to say.
H.R. McMaster is a war-monger who reminds me of no one so much as Dr. Strangelove. He believes that the United States will only be successful countering Russia if we display real strength but fails to acknowledge the obvious fact that “experts” who believe what he believes have spent the better part of the 21st century squandering American strength through useless wars that we always lose but have cost our nation trillions of dollars. Perhaps the General can tell us which wars he fought in that the United States has actually won. If the answer is that he hasn’t fought in any wars where our country has emerged victorious, maybe his expertise should not be relied on.
Putting all of this aside for the moment, McMastsr argues that the NATO Alliance needs to be reinvigorated to confront the new Axis of Evil, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. It sounds good on paper but there’s one big problem. America’s allies are paper tigers. They’re useless.
Take a look at the big three; the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Could these nations be more pathetic than they are now? How’s the economic vitality of the UK, France and Germany? What’s the state of their military capabilities? When was the last time an important innovation emerged from their industries or their universities?
To make matters worse, look at the enfeebled leaders of these nations; coukd they be more impotent? Prime Minister Two-Tier, President Macron and Chancellor Scholz are despised by their own citizens. Scholz is about to be dumped. Macron neutered himself by putting a gun to his own head and threatening his own people to stop or he will shoot. In a few short months, Two Tier has gone from a reasonably popular figure to a remarkably unpopular figure. His polling has cratered right along with his nation’s economic prospects.
The Alliance that McMaster wants to reinvigorate is toast, not because of anything Biden has done and not because of anything Trump might do. Our European allies made a conscious decision to commit suicide. They’ve succeeded. They’re like a pathetic victim who’s slit his own wrists and are sitting in a bathtub filled with warm water while they bleed out.
McMaster’s suggestion that a reinvigorated America and a reinvigorated Europe confront Russia and China together is a losing strategy because nothing can reinvigorate America’s European allies.
They’re in extremis. They’re useless.
Guess we'd best commit suicide, then.
It’s already happening. What’s your opinion about the status of the European big three? Do you think that our allies are in any shape to provide the United States with substantial and consequential assistance as we take on Russia, China, Iran and North Korea? Would you feel confident being in a foxhole along with Macron, Scholz and Two Tier?
You want the United States to reeducate itself to being the leader of the free-world. Can we really be a leader if we have followers as pathetic as our big three European allies? Do you feel confident that Macron, Scholz (or any plausible replacement) and Starmer are the type of leaders we want on our side as we confront Putin and Shi?
You know what I think; I believe they’re pathetic. Why don’t you tell us what you think?
Yes. Metz will replace Scholz, and the others will follow if we lead. Europe has already provided more aid to Ukraine than we have.
All true but so what? Does that provide any evidence that they’re competent allies?
McMaster highlights the importance of deterrence. Given the feeble state of the European economies how durable can their support be? Russia’s economy is feeble too but all of the available evidence suggests that the Russian people don’t care. Russians have dealt with a feeble economy for decades if not centuries. The French on the other hand became apoplectic when Macron wanted to raise the retirement age decades from now. That doesn’t leave much left over for defense spending, does it?
What’s the status of the British army and navy? What’s the status of the French armed forces? Do you have any confidence that given an armed conflict, the German army would do anything but cut and run and quickly sue for peace?
You’re an expert on Margaret Thatcher and you’re also a fan. Which current European leader most reminds you of Margaret Thatcher? Is it Two Tier? What about Macron? I can’t believe Scholz puts you in mind of Thatcher. As for Metz, admittedly, it’s too soon to tell.
The United States won the Cold War with European allies who were at least modestly competent. If there’s to be a new Cold War or God-forbid, a hot war, doesn’t the United States need capable allies?
In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that the UK, France and Germany are competent? If not, do you expect Americans to carry the full load yet again? Are Americans supposed to underwrite the bulk of the enormous costs of defending Europe until the end of time while the Europeans continue to be free-loaders?
"Are Americans supposed to underwrite the bulk of the enormous costs of defending Europe until the end of time while the Europeans continue to be free-loaders?" Suppose we did. It would be better by far, and less costly for us, than living in the world you propose. But fortunately, this is a completely nonsensical question: once again, Europe has outspent us in Ukraine's defense.
Europe has modestly outspent the United States providing aid to Ukraine. I’m not sure why you think this is such an accomplishment. After all for the Europeans, Ukraine is next door. For the United States it’s thousands of miles away. None of this is to suggest that the United States shouldn’t provide substantial support for Ukraine; after all, our nation helped instigate the attack and vetoed all the proposed compromises at the beginning of the conflict. We also induced Ukraine to give up all of its nuclear weapons and made promises to guarantee its security. But modestly outspending the United States when it comes to Ukraine seems like the least the Europeans can do.
I can’t help but notice that you won’t address European weakness and fecklessness when it comes to military strength and economic vitality. Do you really think that the fact that Europe has provided slightly more aid to Ukraine than the United States supplies all the evidence that’s needed that the Europeans are good allies?
You’re ignoring McMaster’s admonition in the essay that you posted. He emphasized the importance of deterrence and suggested that deterrence flows from strength. The United States is strong. Trump might request even more funding for the DOD. The Europeans are weak. While many European nations have modestly increased defense spending, their defense spending is a pittance compared to the United States. Their military readiness is shockingly bad. Britain, France and Germany are bad allies. The fact that you can’t address this reality speaks volumes.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question, Claire. If Trump were to threaten to pull the United States out of NATO unless NATO member countries exited the Rome Statute (ICC) what do you suppose Starmer, Macron and Scholz would do? Would they repudiate the ICC or would they accept the destruction of NATO?
We will probably never know although I hope we will find out. My guess is that Starmer, Macron and Scholz would acquiesce to the destruction of NATO before they would accommodate themselves to the evisceration of the ICC. That’s what happens when you fall victim to the insidious mind virus called globalism.
Rededicate not reeducate.