Trudeau: Are The Departure Talks And Negotiations Already Ongoing?

I think so. It feels like the outgoing camp and the likely incoming one are hashing out an agreement leading to Trudeau's departure. It's the opposite of Chrétien and Martin, where the latter's people were trying to bully Chrétien out of the job.

Liberals already know that if they go into the next election with a current cabinet member, that they'll lose spectacularly to the CPC and Poilièvre. Pierre right now is the change agent, so if you're a Liberal, how do you blunt or weaken that factor?

Quite simply, you go with a leader who's not even remotely associated with this disaster of a government. So, at least one candidate is already in the unofficial running. My sense is that it won't exactly be a coronation but more of a handing off of the baton to an almost inevitable successor.

As I said, Trudeau's departure has to be negotiation item one. Ideally, for the incoming group, it would probably be a good idea if Trudeau took his walk in the leaves. That would facilitate the organizing of a leadership race, which more than likely would be a foregone conclusion. A multi-candidate race with a quiet understanding of who is going to win. 

Once Trudeau goes, it's already a new ballgame on the ground, one where the CPC will have to be strategically at their very best to blunt Liberal momentum coming out of a leadership convention. With a new leader running in the next election, there will be no room for strategic error in that campaign. In short, it's very much Poilièvre's election to lose, if he doesn't strategically play his cards right. I think we'll still win under such a scenario, but the huge and perhaps unprecedented CPC landslide will certainly go out the window with a new Liberal leader. Interesting times ahead.

Why The Liberals Can't Win Next Time.

A majority of people would say you can sum it up in two words: Justin T-R-U-D-E-A-U. But that is far too simplistic -- this Prime Minister can hang on so he gets to take the rest of 'em down with him -- but just imagine that HimselfTM leaves, and they go to a convention. If they're foolish enough to choose an establishment government candidate, you know, some fool who acted as a trained seal in the odious Trudeau cabinet, then they're going down, probably for the history books.

However, if Trudeau leaves and a business candidate emerges who's already a star in the sector, not some guy who made his recent money on the government dole, then suddenly, the Liberals are already competitive. So, quite clearly, the next election is for Poilièvre to lose. Personally, I don't think he's actually stupid enough to say something that'll blow him right out of the water in the campaign. In fact, I'm counting on it. 

But what if the next Liberal leader is a business Liberal from the private sector? I still think they'll lose, but if they run a disciplined campaigned with a laser focused message, then we could be reduced to a minority win. Heaven help us if they do. 

This country needs change. We need to get as far away as we can from typical Liberal clubism and cronyism. Only Poilièvre can achieve that by forming government. Pierre IS the designated change-agent, whether you like him or not. 

Johnson: The Fix Is In.

Johnson is not worried about a motion to vacate. He shouldn't be because, quite obviously, he's already cut a deal with Jeffries and the Democrats. They will keep him in office until January. But after that, forget it.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have the best of both worlds: the votes fracture the Republican Party even more as if that wasn't already possible, and all that infighting increases the Democrats' odds of returning as the majority in November. 

Greene and those other fools are cutting their own throats and with gusto. Too funny. Greene, the next Newt who will send the Republicans into one hell of a tailspin. 

Keep an eye on Jeffries. He's clearly on a path to becoming the next Speaker. Republicans blow it again as they tear themselves apart.

Can't wait to see the loser Trump having a fit over Ukraine aid. That, in and of itself, is worth the price of admission. 

Ukraine And Israel Aid Passes!

Johnson came through.

Ukraine passes!

311-112, 1 present.

Yay: 210 Democrats, 101 Republicans
Nay: 112 Republicans

Israel passes!

366-58

Yay: 173 Democrats, 193 Republicans
Nay: 37 Democrats, 21 Republicans

Thank God. This will put off WWIII for a while.

Johnson: Call Taylor Greene's Bluff On Aid.

Look, the time has arrived for Johnson to do what's right intellectually and morally, and that's funding both Ukraine and Israel. Put a bill before the House and let the chips fall where they may. It's clear that Taylor Greene doesn't have the votes to remove Johnson, so her motion to vacate would be a useless parliamentary procedure.

If it comes to a vote, almost all Democrats and a good chunk of Republicans would vote to keep Johnson as Speaker. That's reality. So let her have at it. She won't win. The other thing is the irony of how loyal TG was to McCarthy and how suddenly disloyal she is now. Jeez, I wonder why. Surely, had nothing to do with getting a leadership post then, but not now. Nah. 

The Senate aid bill will pass if brought to the floor by Johnson, especially in light of the Iranian attack on Israel. It's time for Johnson to show that he's got guts. Otherwise, he'll likely go down in history as a failed and weak Speaker. 

Iran Attacks Israel.

Iran has struck Israel with a seeming combination of drones, cruise and ballistic missiles. Interceptions have been happening over Jerusalem and likely other parts of Israel. Some have been made by various defensive systems, while fighter aircraft and warships from the United States, Israel and the UK are reported to have been involved.

The Iranian response, to many's surprise, hasn't been proportional. It's viewed as a deliberate escalation in the wake of the destruction of a building near the consular section of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. That attack killed seven officers of the Quds Force, including two generals. Israel hasn't claimed responsibility for that attack but is largely viewed as having been responsible.

Let's take a step back and ask why did Israel reportedly attack an Iranian diplomatic mission in Syria? Here's my bet: a direct command and control link between the Quds Force and Hamas before and on October 7th. Nothing else makes sense or probably served as a motive for the Israeli strike. 

But back to the Iranian attack: one might suggest that the disproportionate nature of the Iranian response is an indication of the instability of the Iranian regime. That could be why Iran went big. Clearly, Iran has grossly miscalculated if they expect this attack to be the end of it. 

For her part, Israel has no alternative but to respond in kind with something equally dramatic and probably far more decisive. So, the next shoe to drop is bound to be devastating to Iran. After all, Israel must respond to a de facto declaration of war. Iran, after the fact, wants to tamp things down. They also want the United States and its allies to stay out of it. Not a chance.

Netanyahu will strike back, perhaps later than sooner. It won't be pretty, given that Iran doesn't have the level of sophisticated defence systems that Israel has.

Are these the first innings of a new Middle East war? Probably.    

Trump Hush Money Trial Starts Monday.

As a person who absolutely loathes Trump and always has, I can't believe this trial is going ahead. Seriously, would any other American be placed on trial for allegedly disguising hush money payments to Stormy Daniels as legal bills coming from his then-attorney Michael Cohen?

IMHO, this is more political theatre than anything else. I wonder if any of Bragg's arguments will win the day or be dispositive. Yes, this looks like pretzeled legal reasoning and will only help Trump.

This case stinks and looks relatively weak, to use a common Trumpism. I don't expect even a Manhattan jury to find Trump guilty on any counts. I'll even go further, I expect to see a fallback plan, you know, where a sleeper is placed on the jury to ensure at worst that the jury deadlocks.

So...don't expect any miracles at this trial. All it will likely do is raise Trump's popularity numbers...

God help us.

Trumpomics: A Path To Total Economic Failure.

The Biden Administration keeps saying that the economy is in very good shape, but that's not what people are feeling on the ground. Hence, Biden's approval rating of roughly 40%. Normally, Biden's re-election would already be a write-off, given that every single American incumbent president who polled under 50% in November in an election year did not get re-elected. Biden's people are cooking the economic numbers, and the business press is largely complicit in that.

So...normally Biden would already be a loser in November, but then there are a couple of things likely to work in his favour: Trump's various trials and then there's a whopper called Trumponomics. Not convinced? Then just look at Trump Media: the stock is tanking, wiping out one billion dollars of Trump's net worth. No kidding. 

In Trump World, four million in revenue is a great achievement, while fifty-eight million in losses is fake news, a distraction and mere detail. And the topper: jackass Nunes gets to keep his six hundred thousand in retention bonus (along with one million dollar salary) while presiding over the stock's swan dive.

Ah, Trumpomics, doing for small investors what he'll do for the rest of you if Trump gets to return as President. The filthy rich can't wait for the Trump tax cuts not to expire as scheduled later this year. But don't worry billionaires and millionaires, Trump plans to cut your taxes even more if he returns to the White House. Comforting for the mega-rich. Not so much for everyone else.

   

Le miracle des F16?

Les forces aériennes du Danemark et des Pays-Bas prévoient de transférer des dizaines d'avions combattants en Ukraine. La première de ces livraisons devrait avoir lieu cet été. Les transferts seront mis en œuvre avec l’aide des États-Unis, qui joueront un rôle clé pour assurer la mise en œuvre réussie du transfert des F16 en temps opportun.

Mais quelle est l’importance de ces transferts? Ils permettront une couverture aérienne limitée, mais ne donneront pas nécessairement un avantage aux Ukrainiens dans le ciel ni une supériorité absolue.

Il est beaucoup plus important d’acheminer l’aide américaine à l’Ukraine par l’intermédiaire du Congrès. Il est absolument nécessaire d’appuyer l’aide américaine à l’Ukraine pour assurer la liberté et la démocratie dans le monde. C’est presque un trésor.

L’éléphant dans la pièce est le fait que les gouvernements américains et d’autres gouvernements font face à un choix de gouvernance. Nous pouvons soutenir la démocratie ukrainienne dans sa lutte contre la Russie, ou nous pouvons créer des conditions en Ukraine et dans d’autres pays européens qui, en fin de compte, exigent la participation active des forces américaines et de l’OTAN pour assurer la démocratie sur le continent européen. En d’autres termes, nous pouvons combattre la Russie par l’intermédiaire du représentant ukrainien ou échouer dans notre défense de la démocratie, ce qui conduira à la participation active de l’OTAN au soutien des démocraties libérales en Europe. Compte tenu du programme de Poutine en Europe, nous pouvons combattre Poutine maintenant à travers l’Ukraine ou inévitablement le combattre plus tard dans une guerre à part entière sur le continent européen. Mais dans tous les cas, la Russie doit être restreinte, ou la plupart de l’Europe peuvent tomber sous la domination russe. C’est un aperçu que les républicains du Congrès ignorent à leurs risques et périls. 

The F16 Miracle?

The air forces of Denmark and The Netherlands plan to transfer dozens of fighters to Ukraine. The first of those deliveries is expected to take place this summer. Transfers will be implemented with the help of the United States, which will play a key role in ensuring the successful implementation of the timely transfer of F16s.

But how important are these transfers? They will allow a limited level of air coverage, but will not necessarily give Ukrainians an advantage in the air, namely, superiority in the sky.

Much more important is getting U.S. aid to Ukraine through Congress. Supporting U.S. assistance to Ukraine is an absolute necessity when it comes to ensuring freedom and democracy around the world. It's almost a treasure trove.

The elephant in the room is the fact that the American and other governments face a choice of governance. We can support Ukraine's democracy in its struggle against Russia, or we can create conditions in Ukraine and other European countries that ultimately require the active involvement of American and NATO forces to ensure democracy on the European continent. In other words, we can fight Russia through the Ukrainian representative or fail in our defence of democracy, which will lead to NATO's active participation in supporting liberal democracies throughout Europe. Given Putin's agenda in Europe, we can fight Putin now through Ukraine or inevitably fight him later in a full-fledged war on the European continent. But in any case, Russia must be restrained, or most of Europe may fall under Russian domination. It's a big picture that Republicans in Congress ignore at their peril.

Диво F16?

Повітряні сили Данії та Нідерландів планують передати Україні десятки винищувачів. Очікується, що перша з цих поставок відбудеться цього літа. Трансферти будуть реалізовуватися за допомогою США, які відіграватимуть ключову роль у забезпеченні успішної реалізації своєчасної передачі F16.

Але наскільки важливі ці трансфери? Вони дозволять обмежений рівень покриття повітря, але не обов'язково дадуть українцям перевагу в повітрі в небі.

Набагато важливішим є отримання допомоги США Україні через Конгрес. Підтримка допомоги США Україні є абсолютною необхідністю, коли йдеться про забезпечення свободи та демократії у всьому світі. Це майже скарбниця.

Слон у кімнаті - це той факт, що американські та інші уряди стоять перед вибором управління. Ми можемо підтримати демократію України в її боротьбі проти Росії, або ми можемо створити умови в Україні та інших європейських країнах, які в кінцевому підсумку вимагають активного залучення американських і натовських сил для забезпечення демократії на європейському континенті. Іншими словами, ми можемо боротися з Росією через українського представника або провалитися в нашому захисті демократії, що призведе до активної участі НАТО в підтримці ліберальних демократій по всій Європі. Враховуючи порядок денний Путіна в Європі, ми можемо боротися з Путіним зараз через Україну або неминуче боротися з ним пізніше в повноцінній війні на європейському континенті. Але в будь-якому випадку Росія повинна бути стриманою, або більша частина Європи може потрапити під російське панування. Це велика картина, яку республіканці в Конгресі ігнорують на свій страх і ризик.

Bill 56: A National Disgrace.

The problem in Quebec isn't really equality between men and women. The real problem is Quebec's politicians. In Quebec, the collective power of women politicians is ignored. There is no women's caucus that goes beyond party caucuses. A monumental error on the part of the women who sit in the National Assembly. 

It seems that Quebec City's politicians remain vehemently opposed to the concept of legal equality between the sexes in the Civil Code, particularly in the Code's Family Law chapter. Interestingly, every other jurisdiction in North America substantially settled these issues by the 1980s. What an embarrassment for Quebec and its citizens. 

Once again, the problem lies between the ears of politicians: what a motley crew: re: chiropractors, optometrists, paramedics and the list goes on. In Quebec, unlike other jurisdictions, there was an eternity of debate before the province reflected the reality of the 20th and 21st centuries. 

Returning to Bill 56, such an opting-out mentality for common-law partners is not only embarrassing for Quebec society, but also fundamentally discriminatory. What's more, women who have no children and those living in blended families have no additional rights...what a ridiculous and senseless legal situation. 

It doesn't take the intellectual capacity of a MENSA member to understand the result of these exceptions: a loss of rights for women, which from the outset were only conditional and arbitrary. It's not unreasonable to conclude that when there's trouble in a couple, more often than not, the male spouse is likely to move on, i.e. "change" spouse. 

This worrying political reality in Quebec does not reflect the reality on the ground. A survey conducted by INRS and the Université de Sherbrooke shows that seventy-two percent of Quebecers are in favour of legal equality between married and common-law spouses. Seventy-six percent of non-married spouses also agree. Among women, the figure is seventy-five percent, compared with sixty-eight percent for men. In short, Quebec society is already politically au rendez-vous. Politicians in Quebec City, NO. 

Given the cowardice of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Lola case, it becomes imperative to change our politicians in Quebec City. Without a major reform of those who sit in the National Assembly, Quebec City will remain a representation of mixed parental rights. 

Over to you, the voters!

Le projet de loi 56 : une honte nationale.

Le problème au Québec n'est pas vraiment l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes. Le vrai problème, c'est la classe politique québécoise. Au Québec, le pouvoir collectif des femmes politiques est ignoré. Il n'y a pas de caucus des femmes qui dépasse les caucus des partis. Une erreur monumentale de la part des femmes qui siègent à l'Assemblée nationale. 

Il semble que les politiciens de la ville de Québec restent farouchement opposés au concept d'égalité juridique entre les sexes dans le Code civil, en particulier dans le chapitre du Code de la famille. Il est intéressant de noter que toutes les autres juridictions d'Amérique du Nord ont substantiellement réglé ces questions dans les années 1980. Quel embarras pour le Québec et ses citoyens. 

Une fois de plus, le problème se situe entre les oreilles des politiciens : quelle équipe hétéroclite. Chiropraticiens, optométristes, ambulanciers, et j'en passe. Au Québec, contrairement à d'autres juridictions, il y a eu une éternité de débats avant que la province ne reflète la réalité des 20ᵉ et 21ᵉ siècles. 

Pour en revenir au projet de loi 56, une telle mentalité d'exclusion des conjoints de fait est non seulement embarrassante pour la société québécoise, mais aussi fondamentalement discriminatoire. De plus, les femmes qui n'ont pas d'enfants et celles qui vivent dans des familles reconstituées n'ont aucun droit supplémentaire... Quelle situation juridique ridicule et insensée. 

Il ne faut pas avoir la capacité intellectuelle d'un membre de MENSA pour comprendre le résultat de ces exceptions : une perte de droits pour les femmes, qui n'étaient au départ que conditionnels et arbitraires. Il n'est pas déraisonnable de conclure que lorsqu'il y a des problèmes dans un couple, le plus souvent, le conjoint masculin est susceptible de passer à autre chose, c'est-à-dire de "changer" de conjoint. 

Cette réalité politique inquiétante au Québec ne reflète pas la réalité sur le terrain. Un sondage réalisé par l'INRS et l'Université de Sherbrooke démontre que soixante-douze pour cent des Québécois sont en faveur de l'égalité juridique entre les conjoints mariés et les conjoints de fait. Soixante-seize pour cent des conjoints non mariés sont également de cet avis. Chez les femmes, le chiffre est de soixante-quinze pour cent, contre soixante-huit pour cent chez les hommes. Bref, la société québécoise est déjà politiquement au rendez-vous. Politiciens à Québec, NON. 

Devant la lâcheté de la décision de la Cour suprême du Canada dans l'affaire Lola, il devient impératif de changer nos politiciens à Québec. Sans une réforme majeure de ceux qui siègent à l'Assemblée nationale, Québec demeurera une représentation des droits parentaux mixtes. 

À vous, les électeurs !

Carbon Tax Common Denominator: Hypocrisy All Around.

The carbon tax isn't really a problem in Canada. Rather, it's the self-awareness of governments and politicians that's way beyond hypocritical. Let's start with the Trudeau Liberals: talk about chutzpah, they've exempted home heating oil purchases in Atlantic Canada, while raising the tax by twenty-three percent on April 1st.

As for the Conservatives, it's party policy to scrap the carbon tax without illuminating what would potentially replace it. Put another way, it's question mark time. To be fair, Poilièvre has said that he'd approve clean energy and emissions-reducing projects and streamline regulation-red tape. So, that's better than nothing. But is it enough? The jury's still out on that one. Voters will decide.

Now here's one that's really rich: Danielle Smith fervently opposes the carbon tax -- not just the April 1 increase -- and is likely to challenge it in the courts. But wait for it. Take all of that in while noting that she's OK with raising the provincial fuel tax! Cognitive dissonance at its finest. Talk about backbone time for your average Albertan: will they drink the double-standard (Kool-Aid®), or will they turn on their government when the provincial hike goes ahead? Don't hold your breath.

Meanwhile, Canadians have largely soured on the tax, or at least the April 1 increase, according to two recent polls from Léger and Angus Reid Forum. In the Léger poll, sixty-nine percent of those polled were against raising the tax, while the ARF poll found that fifty-four percent backed the Saskatchewan government's decision to no longer collect the tax on Ottawa's behalf.

For my part, I favour the carbon tax as a temporary national measure. I would prefer that we move to a provincial-and-territorial-wide cap-and-trade system; like they have in Quebec and BC. However, to raise the tax during such difficult economic times is sheer lunacy. People are already hard-pressed enough. More are likely living pay cheque to pay cheque than ever before. And to have exempted Atlantic Canada from the tax, just to get desperately needed votes? Words fail me, other than obscenities. 

Will Trump Drop Dead Before November?

Mr. (Big Mac®) isn't in the best of health. Imagine the pressure on Trump as he struggles to come up with 464 million dollars in the New York Trump Organization case. Meanwhile, he says he's got 500 million in cash. Either way, Trump has to personally pay up by next Monday's deadline.

And then there's the E. Jean Carroll case, where Trump must pay her 92 million. In that case, Trump secured a bond. The former president must be positively seething. Never good for a 77-year-old man.

Meanwhile, there are a bunch of retiring Representatives in the House and Senate. Some of them are against Trump: Senator Romney is leaving and doesn't support Trump. Others, like Murkowski, Collins and Young, agree but are sticking it out in DC. 

So, the pressure's on Trump. If I was Trump, I'd be seeing my doctor at least twice a year. Otherwise...

In short, don't be surprised if Trump drops dead. The odds? One in three and heading for one in two. 

Them's the breaks, I suppose.

 

Americans Play Right Into Putin's Hands.

Putin can't wait for November 5th. It will be a day when the United States rips itself apart and becomes even more polarized than it already is -- in an ideal world, neither Biden nor Trump would have been selected as a party nominee because of the way each is literally hated by the other's partisans and supporters. This has become a blood feud with no room for compromise or accommodation. In short, down the path the United States will go to a likely civil war, no matter who wins.

Like I said a million times before, the day the average, every day, American decided to put cult and party above country is the day that America was destroyed as an effective force for good over evil. Trump and, yes, even Biden are far too polarizing to be nominees. Neither should be running again in 2024.

Meanwhile, guess who's sitting in Moscow waiting for the most divisive results in American electoral history. Picture it: Americans are bitterly divided and violent skirmishes start to break out across the United States. Whoever wins the election, and right now it looks like Trump, will have to deal with this where potentially millions of innocent Americans will end up being victims of violence from one side's supporters or the other. 

So...hello! With America distracted, the road will be open for Putin to invade NATO in Europe if he so chooses. The United States will be unable to stop him due to the violence and chaos at home. This is the nirvana scenario for Putin: he's watching the average American practically tearing his or her shirt or blouse off in favour of their side. He just can't wait for the election. It'll be a great day for Putin. 

As a result, WWIII will come a lot faster than otherwise would have been the case. But without American help, unlike the last two times, Europe will be doomed. Democracy is a cause that can only survive and prosper when the United States takes the lead. If my name is Putin, I'm probably already broadly smiling...

Macron, The Lincoln of Europe.

No star shines brighter than Macron. He is the man for the job, the champion of democracy and the undisputed political leader in Europe and the West. 

As the Americans say: Macron has met the moment. For him, the war in Ukraine is already European, a question of collective security on the continent. Again, American-style, we can fight them now, or fight them later, but most certainly, we will inevitably fight them. 

Macron knows instinctively that Putin is a man who will stop at nothing on European soil. Chechnya, Georgia and now Ukraine. That's why he supports the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine. He sees Putin's true intentions. 

As Chamberlain said: force must be met with force. Force remains the only counterweight to force. I would even go so far as to say that, given the political, diplomatic and military positions adopted by the Élysée Palace, Putin cannot hope to win this war. The occupation of Ukraine becomes almost impossible in this context. 

Putin now feels cornered. That's why he is threatening nuclear retaliation if NATO sends troops to Ukraine. It is largely thanks to Macron that there is now public talk of Ukraine's inevitable admission not only to the European Union, but also NATO. In other words, the die has already been cast. 

No one can claim that Macron is a coward. This is not the case in some other European capitals. This man will occupy a special place in history. When the disaster of fascism was almost upon us, Macron was there to defend democracy. Long live Macron!

Macron : le Lincoln de l'Europe.

Aucune étoile ne brille plus fort que Macron. Il est l'homme de la situation, le champion de la démocratie et le leader politique incontesté en Europe et en Occident.

Comme le disent les Américains : Macron a rencontré le moment. Pour lui, la guerre en Ukraine est déjà européenne, une question de sécurité collective sur le continent. Encore une fois, à l'américaine, nous pouvons les combattre maintenant, ou les combattre plus tard, mais très certainement, nous les combattrons inévitablement. 

Macron sait d'instinct que Poutine est un homme qui ne recule devant rien sur le sol européen. Tchétchénie, Géorgie et présentement Ukraine. C'est pourquoi il soutient le déploiement des troupes de l'OTAN en Ukraine. Il voit venir les véritables intentions de Poutine. 

Comme le disait Chamberlain : à la force doit répondre la force. La force reste le seul contrepoids à la force. Je dirais même que, compte tenu des positions politiques, diplomatiques et militaires adoptées par l'Élysée, Poutine ne peut espérer gagner cette guerre. L'occupation de l'Ukraine devient presque impossible dans ce contexte. 

Poutine se sent désormais acculé. C'est pourquoi il menace d'une riposte nucléaire si l'OTAN envoie des troupes en Ukraine. C'est en grande partie grâce à Macron que l'on parle actuellement publiquement de l'admission inévitable de l'Ukraine non seulement à l'Union européenne, mais aussi à l'OTAN. En d'autres termes, les dés sont déjà jetés. 

Personne ne peut prétendre que Macron est un lâche. Ce n'est pas le cas dans plusieurs d'autres capitales européennes. Cet homme occupera une place particulière dans l'histoire. Lorsque le désastre du fascisme était quasiment à nos portes, Macron était là pour défendre la démocratie. Longue vie à Macron !

יש צורך בבחירות חדשות בישראל.

שומר רואה את עצמו כאפוטרופוס של ישראל ורואה בעמדה זו רק שני לנאמנותו העיקרית לארצות-הברית. לכן הוא רוצה לראות בבחירות, כפי שהוא רואה בנתניהו מכשול לשלום עם הפלסטינים.

ביבי אינו ראוי לכהן כראש-ממשלה - לא אחרי טבח 7-אוקטובר הנורא. נתניהו היה צריך להתפטר מיד.

אבל הפתעה, הפתעה, נתניהו הלא-פופולרי עדיין שם, מנסה להשפיע. החוצפה המוחלטת של האיש.

אתה מבין, נתניהו עובד רק בשביל עצמו, ותו לא. שיקולים ישראליים הם במקרה הטוב משניים. נתניהו עוסק רק בשני דברים: אחיזת ברזל בשלטון, בלי קשר לפופולריות או אי-פופולריות. הדבר החשוב היחיד בשבילו הוא להישאר מחוץ לכלא.

אז נתניהו דוחף את המתכת בעזה בלחימה במחבלי חמאס כאמצעי להשגת מטרה, ושומר את התחת שלו בכיסא ראש-הממשלה.

ואז יש את עניין בני הערובה. הוא באמת רוצה עסקה? הוא מדבר משחק טוב, אבל מה שחשוב הוא תוצאות. מה יקרה מבחינה פוליטית אם האנשים האומללים האלה יחזרו הביתה בהמוניהם? שאל את השאלה ואתה עונה עליה.

נכון, אף ראש-ממשלה לא יכול להרשות למנהיגות העליונה של חמאס לנצח, אבל אחרת, האם עסקה עדיין אפשרית? לא תחת הנהגתו של ביבי. בני-הערובה, או לפחות אלה שעדיין בחיים, ימשיכו להירקב בעזה כל עוד נתניהו משרת בירושלים.

אבל בחזרה לשומר: מה שהשומר אמר בציבור דרש הרבה אומץ. ובשביל ההנהגה הרפובליקנית, החל מקונל, לנזוף בו הוא צבוע.

הבעיה של שומר היא שכרגע אין די תמיכה בכנסת כדי להביס את הממשלה. כאן גנז וגלנט נכנסים לתמונה. הם צריכים לעזוב את ממשלת האחדות הלאומית אתמול כדי לתת תנופה זו. בלי זה נשאר נתניהו בתפקידו, נקודה.

ממשלה זו חייבת לשאת באחריות, והיא לעולם לא תתרחש כל עוד נתניהו יישאר ראש-ממשלה. אחד חושד שאף אחד לא יודע את זה יותר טוב מהאפוטרופוס.

Schumer: New Elections Needed In Israel.

Schumer considers himself a guardian of Israel and views that role as only second to his primary allegiance to the United States. That's why he's called for new elections, as he sees Netanyahu as an obstacle to peace with the Palestinians.

Of course, Schumer is on target: Bibi doesn't deserve to serve as Prime Minister-- not after the horrific bungle of October 7th -- where true accountability demanded that Netanyahu resign immediately.

But surprise, surprise, the wildly unpopular Netanyahu is still there, trying to hold sway. The unmitigated gall of the man.

You see, Bibi is all about Bibi, nothing more. The considerations of the Israeli people are at best secondary. Netanyahu is all about two things: holding an iron grip on power, come what may, and regardless of popularity or lack thereof. The only other important thing: staying out of jail.

So, Netanyahu pushes to the metal in Gaza against Hamas terrorists as a means to an end, namely to keep his ass in the prime minister's chair.

And then there's the matter of hostages. Does Bibi really want a deal? He talks a good game, but what counts is results. What would happen politically if those unfortunate people returned home en masse? To ask the question is to answer it. 

Sure, no Prime Minister can preside over an out for Hamas' top leadership, but short of that, is a potential deal still possible? I submit, not under Bibi's leadership. The hostages, or at least those who are still alive, will continue to rot in Gaza as long as Netanyahu presides in Jerusalem. 

But back to Schumer: what Schumer said publicly took incredible guts. And for the Republican leadership, beginning with McConnell, to rebuke him is the ultimate in hypocrisy, but hey, that is after all a Trump Republican thing...line up behind the devil or else.

Schumer's problem is that at present there's not enough support in the Knesset to unscramble the eggs. That's where Gantz and Gallant come in. They need to leave the national unity government yesterday to give this thing Big Mo. Without that, Netanyahu stays in office, period.

There needs to be true accountability for Bibi and his government, and that can never happen as long as Netanyahu remains as prime minister. One suspects no one knows that better than Schumer.

Les troupes de l'OTAN en Ukraine : Poutine est perdant dans les deux cas.

Poutine est furieux à l'idée de voir des troupes de l'OTAN en Ukraine. Il a menacé de recourir à des représailles nucléaires si cela se produisait. Il n'est pas déraisonnable de penser que ce genre de discussions, d'abord par Macron et maintenant par Sikorski, probablement avec l'approbation tacite de Tusk, change la donne et vise à empêcher la Russie d'envahir et d'occuper l'Ukraine à long terme. Poutine a assurément dépassé le stade de la folie furieuse. 

Bien sûr, il s'agit d'un jeu dangereux de surenchère : si nous n'avons rien appris d'autre de la désastreuse guerre du Viêt Nam, c'est que les conseillers militaires sont le premier pas vers un véritable engagement militaire en première ligne. Personne ne le sait mieux que Poutine. 

L'OTAN est donc à la fois intelligente et risquée. Nous jouons un jeu à grands enjeux pour toutes les billes, avec le continent européen comme prix ultime. Quel type de conseillers Bruxelles a-t-elle l'intention d'envoyer à un moment encore indéterminé du conflit russo-ukrainien ? 

Jouons le jeu : on pourrait se contenter d'envoyer des conseillers militaires qui resteraient en grande partie à Khiv et conseilleraient Zelenskyy sur les armes et les tactiques. Vous savez, des types blancs comme la vanille. Ou vous pourriez aller dans l'autre sens et envoyer de petits contingents de troupes terrestres en tant que geste symbolique concernant l'intégrité territoriale de l'Ukraine. Des forces noires limitées. 

Quoi qu'il en soit, le problème de Poutine résulterait de toute perte de l'OTAN sur le sol ukrainien. Les forces terrestres de l'OTAN passeraient alors inévitablement en mode escalade, ce qui ne servirait pas les intérêts du Kremlin et n'exclurait pas une extension de la guerre dans laquelle l'OTAN serait directement impliquée. En résumé, aucun de ces scénarios n'est favorable à la Russie ou à ses projets sur le théâtre des opérations. Poutine sait qu'il ne peut pas battre l'Ukraine avec la participation de l'OTAN. C'est un fait indéniable. 

Il est donc délicieusement ironique que le blocage du financement de l'Ukraine par Washington augmente considérablement les chances d'une participation de l'OTAN, dans une certaine mesure, sur le terrain en Ukraine. Pour Poutine, il s'agirait d'un scénario sans issue. L'escalade tranquille et délibérée est ce que Poutine craint le plus. Et il ne fait aucun doute que Poutine a mis le doigt dans l'engrenage.

NATO Troops In Ukraine: Either Way Putin Loses.

Putin is livid at the prospect of NATO troops possibly eventually ending up in Ukraine. He's threatened a nuclear response should that happen. It's not unreasonable to suggest that this kind of rhetoric first floated by Macron and now by Sikorski, likely with Tusk's tacit consent, is a game-changer designed to prevent Russia from overrunning and occupying Ukraine over the long term. Putin likely is way beyond boiling mad. 

Of course, this is a dangerous game of one-upmanship: if we learned nothing other than this from the disastrous Vietnam War, it was that military advisers are the first stepping-stone to actual frontline military commitment. No one knows that better than Putin. 

So, NATO is being both clever and risky. We're playing a high-stakes game for all the marbles, with the European continent as the ultimate prize. Exactly what flavour of advisers does Brussels intend to send at some yet-to-be-determined point of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict?

Let's game it out: you could send strictly only military advisers who would largely remain in Khiv and who'd advise Zelenskyy on weapons and tactics. You know, vanilla-white types. Or, you could go the other way and send small contingents of ground troops as a symbolic gesture re: Ukrainian territorial integrity. Limited, black forces. 

Either way, Putin's problem would flow from any kind of NATO casualties on Ukrainian soil. That would inevitably put NATO's ground forces in escalation mode, and that would neither serve the Kremlin's interests nor preclude a widening of the war where NATO becomes a direct party. In short, neither of these scenarios is good for Russia or her plans in theatre. Putin knows that, with NATO all-in, he can't beat Ukraine. That's an iron-clad fact. 

As a result, it's deliciously ironic how holding up Ukraine funding in DC increases the chances significantly of NATO involvement, to some extent, on the ground in Ukraine. For Putin, that would be a no-win scenario. Quiet, deliberate escalation is what Putin fears most. And without a doubt, Putin is exactly on target.

Войска НАТО в Украине: Путин проиграет в любом случае.

Путина приводит в ярость перспектива того, что войска НАТО в конечном итоге окажутся в Украине. Он пригрозил ядерным ответом, если это произойдет. Небезосновательно предполагать, что эта риторика, озвученная сначала Макроном, а теперь Сикорским, возможно, с молчаливого согласия Туска, является переломным моментом, призванным предотвратить вторжение России в Украину и ее оккупацию в долгосрочной перспективе. Путин, вероятно, далеко не сумасшедший. Конечно, это опасная игра в возможный упреждающий удар: если мы чему-то и научились во время катастрофической войны во Вьетнаме, так это тому, что военные советники - это первый шаг к реальным военным действиям на линии фронта. Никто не знает этого лучше, чем Путин. Таким образом, НАТО действует одновременно благоразумно и рискованно. Мы играем в игру с высокими ставками по всем картам, и конечный приз - европейский континент. Каких именно советников Брюссель намерен направить в определенный, пока еще не определенный, момент украинско-российского конфликта? Давайте рассмотрим возможные варианты: мы можем послать чисто военных советников, которые будут находиться в Киеве в основном для того, чтобы консультировать Зеленского по вопросам вооружения и тактики. Ну, знаете, ванильная белая сила. Или мы можем пойти другим путем и отправить небольшие контингенты сухопутных войск в качестве символического жеста поддержки территориальной целостности Украины. Ограниченные, черные силы. В любом случае, проблемой для Путина станут любые потери НАТО на украинской земле. Это неизбежно переведет сухопутные войска НАТО в режим эскалации, что не в интересах Кремля и не исключает расширения войны, в которой НАТО станет непосредственной стороной. Короче говоря, ни один из этих сценариев не подходит для России и ее планов на местах. Путин знает, что, если НАТО пойдет на все, он не сможет победить Украину. Это железный факт. Поэтому очень иронично, что задержка финансирования Украины в Вашингтоне значительно увеличивает шансы на участие НАТО, в некоторой степени, на территории Украины. Для Путина это будет проигрышная ситуация. Тихая, преднамеренная эскалация - это то, чего Путин боится больше всего. И, без сомнения, Путин попал в точку.

Війська НАТО в Україні: Путін програє в будь-якому випадку.

Путін розлючений перспективою того, що війська НАТО врешті-решт опиняться в Україні. Він пригрозив ядерною відповіддю, якщо це станеться. Небезпідставно припустити, що ця риторика, спочатку озвучена Макроном, а тепер Сікорським, ймовірно, з мовчазної згоди Туска, є зміною правил гри, покликаною запобігти вторгненню Росії в Україну і її окупації в довгостроковій перспективі. Путін, швидше за все, далеко не божевільний. Звичайно, це небезпечна гра в можливий превентивний удар: якщо ми чогось і навчилися з катастрофічної війни у В'єтнамі, так це того, що військові радники є першим кроком до реальних військових дій на лінії фронту. Ніхто не знає цього краще за Путіна. Отже, НАТО діє одночасно розумно і ризиковано. Ми граємо в гру з високими ставками з усіма кулями, і головний приз - європейський континент. Яких саме радників має намір відправити Брюссель у певний, поки що невизначений, момент українсько-російського конфлікту? Давайте розглянемо можливості: ми можемо надіслати суто військових радників, які здебільшого перебуватимуть у Києві і консультуватимуть Зеленського щодо озброєння і тактики. Знаєте, ванільно-білі сили. Або ж можна піти іншим шляхом і відправити невеликі контингенти сухопутних військ як символічний жест підтримки територіальної цілісності України. Обмежені, чорні сили. У будь-якому випадку, проблемою для Путіна будуть будь-які втрати НАТО на українській землі. Це неминуче переведе наземні сили НАТО в режим ескалації, що не відповідає інтересам Кремля і не виключає розширення війни, де НАТО стане безпосередньою стороною. Коротше кажучи, жоден з цих сценаріїв не є добрим для Росії та її планів на місцях. Путін знає, що якщо НАТО піде ва-банк, він не зможе перемогти Україну. Це залізний факт. Як наслідок, дуже іронічно, що затримка фінансування України у Вашингтоні значно збільшує шанси на залучення НАТО, до певної міри, на місцях в Україні. Для Путіна це була б програшна ситуація. Тиха, навмисна ескалація - це те, чого Путін боїться найбільше. І, без сумніву, Путін влучив у цвях.

Joe Gets His Second Wind While Trump Takes Over The Family.

The State of the Union was great: for the second year in a row, we got to see feisty Joe take on all comers. Biden got as good as he gave in some instances, while gave as good as he got in others. So, the political resurrection plan is underway, but it almost will take one of God's miracles to win. When you're sitting at 38% approval in the latest polls, you need lightning to strike thrice in the same place to win in a general election. At least they're pulling out all the stops and, if necessary, will go down fighting. In a general, anything can happen, so don't count Biden out just yet, even if it's almost a given that he'll likely lose to Trump.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, MAGA is now firmly in control, having taken over the RNC and turned it into just another branch of TheFamilyTM. It's indirect nepotism as Lara assumes the levers of power. Hum, have we ever seen this before? Nope. I don't think so. Imagine if Trump wins in November. Suddenly, the party will become just another offshoot of The White House. Trump will call all the shots across all races -- Lara will more than likely defer to his wishes about who gets funding and more importantly, who doesn't -- you know, Orbán-style politics.

Trump has proven of late to be no friend of your average liberal democracy. I mean, the flashing warning signs are everywhere, but MAGA doesn't care. If he gets in again, the question then becomes will he ever get out, short of an armed forces coup? Do I think Trump will do whatever he can to stay in power beyond 2028? You bet I do. But again, MAGA doesn't care. Not a single thought that such an eventuality would probably spark a second civil war. Nah, not important.

It's all about TheFamilyTM getting back power and keeping it forever. That's the playbook. And it's fucking working, with inflation still higher than the official cooked figures would have us believe. Ditto on the economy and unemployment. People don't feel it when it comes to BidenEconomicsTM because, in reality, the economic relief is simply not there on the ground, where it counts, in each individual household. That's why Joe is losing and still likely to lose in November. Inflation continues to slowly strangle the Biden presidency.

Most people vote their pocketbook first, last and always. Joe needs to remember that even after finding his second wind. 

Шольц: человек сдержанный.

Шольц - сторонник стратегии сдерживания: он выступает за защиту международных границ, но его план, насколько глава правительства может контролировать события, заключается в том, чтобы не предпринимать ничего, что могло бы распространить войну дальше на российскую территорию. Украина уже атаковала приграничные города и устраивала трюки над Кремлем. Для Шольца это опасные авантюры, которые могут перерасти за пределы Украины, если, например, по Москве или Санкт-Петербургу будет нанесен реальный удар с использованием разрушительного оружия, уже находящегося на земле и в руках украинских войск. Другими словами, Шольц в некотором смысле пытается заново откупорить бутылку, содержимое которой уже в значительной степени израсходовано. Наряду с Соединенными Штатами, Германия является главной мишенью Кремля. В Берлине или где-либо еще в Германии нет российских войск, но Шольц и Байден уже присоединились к Зеленскому в пантеоне вражеских лидеров России. Аргументы Шольца рушатся, если рассматривать их в контексте: В условиях отсутствия явной победы на Украине Путин стал гораздо более иррациональным и непредсказуемым. Он чувствует давление и занимает оборонительную позицию. Именно поэтому его беспокоит номер восемь. Чем дольше длится эта война без решительной победы, тем более уязвимым становится Путин внутри страны. Путин, который уже чувствует себя таким образом, устранил свою самую большую внутреннюю угрозу: Навального. Небезосновательно утверждать, что смерть Навального от рук Путина в конечном итоге запомнится как катализатор оппозиции в России, что может еще больше ослабить Путина внутри страны, особенно если Путин продолжит подавлять оппозицию. Он мудро приказал своим силам безопасности вести себя сдержанно на похоронах Навального. Но я отвлекаюсь. Но вернемся к Шольцу. Сдерживание - это стратегия, которая предполагает, что противник полностью разумен и контролирует ситуацию. Путин таковым не является, по крайней мере, в настоящее время. В отличие от ряда других стран НАТО, Шольц не будет посылать военных советников в Хив или поставлять Украине крылатые ракеты "Таурус", опасаясь, что украинцы применят их против Кремля и других целей в Москве. Со своей стороны, Великобритания и Франция уже отправили крылатые ракеты на Украину. В результате мы говорим, с одной стороны, о сдерживании, а с другой - о теории эскалации. Ни то, ни другое не может быть полностью верным, учитывая наши соответствующие оценки Путина и его образа мышления. Со своей стороны, я считаю, что Путин - это человек "сделай или умри", человек, который уже "все сделал" и который в конечном итоге сделает все, чтобы не потерпеть решающего поражения на Украине или не быть свергнутым в Москве. Именно поэтому я выступаю за то, чтобы мы отвечали силой на силу. У нас нет другого реального выбора в борьбе с Путиным. Путина можно остановить только силой. Дипломатического варианта больше не существует. В конечном счете, политика преднамеренной эскалации будет исходить не от членов НАТО, а от самого Путина. Он хочет восстановить Советский Союз любыми средствами. Что еще может сделать Запад и НАТО, кроме как ответить на силу силой? Никто не позволит, чтобы Европу захватил Путин или кто-либо другой. Шольц - чрезвычайно рациональный человек, который также ищет эти качества в своем коллеге. Можно предположить, что Шольц, к своему удивлению, не найдет ничего подобного, когда будет общаться с Путиным о своих конечных целях. Короче говоря, сдерживание в таких условиях даже отдаленно невозможно.

Scholz: l'homme de l'endiguement.

S'il y a une façon tout à fait exacte de décrire Scholz, c'est qu'il n'y a pas de dirigeant plus rationnel ou plus sensé au cœur de l'Europe. M. Scholz est attaché à la défense de la démocratie, mais il croit aussi à la proportionnalité - aucun pays autre que les États-Unis n'ont jamais fourni plus d'aide militaire à l'Ukraine que l'Allemagne - mais M. Scholz a ses limites.

M. Scholz privilégie une stratégie d'endiguement : il est favorable à la défense des frontières internationales, mais son plan, dans la mesure où un chef de gouvernement peut contrôler les événements, consiste à ne rien faire qui puisse étendre la guerre à la Russie. L'Ukraine a déjà attaqué des villes frontalières et mis en scène des cascades au-dessus du Kremlin. Pour M. Scholz, il s'agit là de paris dangereux qui pourraient conduire à une escalade russe au-delà de l'Ukraine si, par exemple, Moscou ou Saint-Pétersbourg étaient effectivement frappés par des armes dévastatrices déjà sur le terrain et entre les mains des forces ukrainiennes. 

En d'autres termes, M. Scholz tente, pour ainsi dire, de boucher une bouteille dont le contenu a déjà été largement épuisé. L'Allemagne est, avec les États-Unis, la principale cible du Kremlin. Les troupes russes ne sont visibles ni à Berlin ni ailleurs en Allemagne, mais Scholz et Biden ont déjà rejoint Zelenskyy au panthéon des dirigeants ennemis de la Russie. 

L'argument de Scholz s'effondre lorsqu'il est replacé dans son contexte : N'ayant pas réussi à remporter une victoire claire en Ukraine, Poutine est désormais beaucoup plus irrationnel et imprévisible. Il ressent la pression et est sur la défensive. C'est pourquoi il s'inquiète du numéro huit. Plus cette guerre se prolonge sans victoire décisive, plus Poutine devient vulnérable à l'intérieur de son pays. Poutine, qui le sent déjà, a éliminé sa plus grande menace intérieure : Navalny. Il n'est pas déraisonnable de dire que la mort de Navalny aux mains de Poutine sera finalement considérée comme un catalyseur pour l'opposition en Russie, ce qui pourrait affaiblir davantage Poutine à l'intérieur du pays, en particulier si Poutine continue à réprimer l'opposition. Sagement, il a demandé à ses forces de sécurité d'agir avec retenue lors des funérailles de M. Navalny. Mais je m'éloigne du sujet. 

Mais revenons à Scholz. L'endiguement est une stratégie qui suppose que l'ennemi est totalement rationnel et qu'il contrôle la situation. Ce n'est pas le cas de Poutine, du moins pas ces jours-ci. Contrairement à plusieurs autres pays de l'OTAN, Scholz n'enverra pas de conseillers militaires à Khiv ni ne fournira à l'Ukraine des missiles de croisière Taurus, de peur que les Ukrainiens ne les utilisent contre le Kremlin et d'autres installations moscovites. En revanche, le Royaume-Uni et la France ont déjà envoyé des missiles de croisière à l'Ukraine. 

Il s'agit donc d'une question d'endiguement, d'une part, et de théorie de l'escalade, d'autre part. Ni l'une ni l'autre ne peuvent être entièrement correctes, compte tenu de l'évaluation et de la façon de penser de Poutine. Pour ma part, je pense que Poutine est un homme do-or-die, un homme qui est déjà "à fond" et qui fera finalement tout pour éviter de perdre de manière décisive en Ukraine ou d'être renversé à Moscou. C'est pourquoi je suis très favorable à l'idée de répondre à la force par la force. Ce n'est pas comme si nous avions d'autres choix réalistes pour traiter avec Poutine. Seule la force peut arrêter Poutine. L'option diplomatique n'existe plus. En fin de compte, une politique délibérée d'escalade ne viendra pas des membres de l'OTAN, mais de Poutine lui-même. Il veut restaurer l'Union soviétique par tous les moyens. Que peuvent faire l'Occident et l'OTAN si ce n'est répondre à la force par la force? Personne ne permettra à l'Europe d'être envahie par Poutine ou par qui que ce soit d'autre. 

Scholz est une personne extrêmement rationnelle qui recherche également ces qualités chez son homologue. Nous pouvons supposer que Scholz, à sa grande surprise, ne trouvera rien de tout cela lorsqu'il discutera avec Poutine des objectifs ultimes de ce dernier. En bref, l'endiguement n'est même pas possible dans de telles circonstances.

Scholz: A Man Of Containment.

If there is one way to describe Scholz that is entirely accurate, it is that there cannot be a more rational or sensible leader at the heart of Europe. Scholz is committed to the defence of democracy, but he also believes in proportionality - no country other than the United States has already provided more military aid to Ukraine than Germany - but Scholz has his limits.

Scholz is an advocate of a containment strategy: he is for the defence of international borders, but his plan, as far as a head of government can control events, is not to do anything that would extend the war further into Russia. Ukraine has already attacked border towns and carried out stunts over the Kremlin. For Scholz, these are dangerous gambles that could lead to a Russian escalation beyond Ukraine if, for example, Moscow or St. Petersburg were actually hit by devastating weapons already on the ground and in the hands of Ukrainian forces.

In other words, Scholz is in a sense trying to re-cork a bottle whose contents have already been largely used up. Alongside the United States, Germany is the Kremlin's main target. Russian troops are nowhere to be seen in Berlin or anywhere else in Germany, but Scholz and Biden have already joined Zelenskyy in the Russian pantheon of enemy leaders. 

Scholz's argument collapses when put into context: Having failed to win a clear victory in Ukraine, Putin is now much more irrational and unpredictable. He feels the pressure and is a man on the defensive. That is why he is worried about number eight. The longer this war goes on without a decisive victory being won, the more vulnerable Putin becomes at home. Putin, who is already feeling this, has eliminated his biggest domestic threat: Navalny. It is not unreasonable to argue that Navalny's death at Putin's hands will ultimately be remembered as a catalyst for the opposition in Russia, which could further weaken Putin at home, especially if Putin continues to crack down on the opposition. Wisely, he had his security forces act with restraint at Navalny's funeral. But I digress.

But back to Scholz. Containment is a strategy that assumes the enemy is completely rational and in control. Putin is not, at least not these days. Unlike several other NATO countries, Scholz will neither send military advisers to Khiv nor provide Ukraine with Taurus cruise missiles for fear that the Ukrainians will use them against the Kremlin and other installations in Moscow. Conversely, the United Kingdom and France have already sent cruise missiles to Ukraine.

It is therefore a question of containment on the one hand and the theory of escalation on the other. Neither can be fully right, given the respective assessment of Putin and his way of thinking. For my part, I think Putin is a do-or-die guy, a man who is already "all in" and who will ultimately do anything to avoid losing decisively in Ukraine or being overthrown in Moscow. That's why I'm very much in favour of us meeting force with force. It's not as if we have any other realistic choice in dealing with Putin. Putin can only be stopped by force. The diplomatic option no longer exists. Ultimately, a policy of deliberate escalation will not come from the NATO members, but from Putin himself. He wants to restore the Soviet Union by any means necessary. What else can the West and NATO do but respond to force with force? No one will allow Europe to be overrun by Putin or anyone else. 

Scholz is an extremely rational person who also looks for these qualities in his counterpart. One can assume that Scholz, much to his surprise, will find none of this when he engages with Putin and his ultimate goals. In short, containment is not even remotely possible under these circumstances.

Scholz: Ein Mann der Eindämmung.

Wenn es eine Möglichkeit gibt, Scholz zu beschreiben, die völlig zutreffend ist, dann die, dass es keinen rationaleren oder vernünftigeren Führer im Herzen Europas geben kann. Scholz setzt sich für die Verteidigung der Demokratie ein, aber er glaubt auch an die Verhältnismäßigkeit - kein anderes Land als die Vereinigten Staaten hat der Ukraine bereits mehr Militärhilfe geleistet als Deutschland -, aber Scholz hat seine Grenzen. 

Scholz ist ein Verfechter einer Eindämmungsstrategie: Er ist für die Verteidigung der internationalen Grenzen, aber sein Plan, soweit ein Regierungschef die Ereignisse kontrollieren kann, ist es, nichts zu tun, was den Krieg weiter nach Russland ausdehnen würde. Die Ukraine hat bereits Grenzstädte angegriffen und Stunts über dem Kreml durchgeführt. Für Scholz sind dies gefährliche Spielchen, die zu einer russischen Eskalation über die Ukraine hinaus führen könnten, wenn beispielsweise Moskau oder St. Petersburg tatsächlich von verheerenden Waffen getroffen würden, die sich bereits vor Ort und in den Händen der ukrainischen Streitkräfte befinden.

Mit anderen Worten: Scholz versucht gewissermaßen, eine Flasche wieder zu verkorken, deren Inhalt bereits weitgehend aufgebraucht ist. Neben den Vereinigten Staaten ist Deutschland das Hauptziel des Kremls. Russische Truppen sind weder in Berlin noch sonst wo in Deutschland zu sehen, aber Scholz und Biden haben sich bereits mit Zelenskyy in das russische Pantheon der feindlichen Führer eingereiht. 

Das Argument von Scholz bricht in sich zusammen, wenn man es in den Kontext stellt: Nachdem er in der Ukraine keinen klaren Sieg errungen hat, ist Putin jetzt viel irrationaler und unberechenbarer. Er spürt den Druck und ist ein Mann in der Defensive. Deshalb ist er besorgt über die Zahl acht. Je länger dieser Krieg andauert, ohne dass ein entscheidender Sieg errungen wird, desto verwundbarer wird Putin im eigenen Land. Putin, der dies bereits zu spüren bekommt, hat seine größte innenpolitische Bedrohung beseitigt: Nawalny. Es ist nicht unvernünftig zu argumentieren, dass Nawalnys Tod durch Putins Hand letztlich als Katalysator für die Opposition in Russland in Erinnerung bleiben wird, was Putin zu Hause weiter schwächen könnte, vor allem, wenn Putin weiterhin hart gegen die Opposition vorgeht. In weiser Voraussicht ließ er seine Sicherheitskräfte bei Nawalnys Beerdigung zurückhaltend agieren. Aber ich schweife ab.

Aber zurück zu Scholz. Eindämmung ist eine Strategie, die davon ausgeht, dass der Feind völlig rational ist und die Kontrolle hat. Putin ist es nicht, jedenfalls nicht in diesen Tagen. Im Gegensatz zu mehreren anderen NATO-Staaten wird Scholz weder Militärberater nach Chiw entsenden noch der Ukraine Taurus-Marschflugkörper zur Verfügung stellen, weil er befürchtet, dass die Ukrainer diese gegen den Kreml und andere Einrichtungen in Moskau einsetzen werden. Umgekehrt haben das Vereinigte Königreich und Frankreich bereits Marschflugkörper in die Ukraine entsandt. 

Es geht also um Eindämmung auf der einen Seite und um die Theorie der Eskalation auf der anderen. Beides kann angesichts der jeweiligen Einschätzung von Putin und seiner Denkweise nicht richtig sein. Ich für meinen Teil halte Putin für einen "do-or-die"-Typ, einen Mann, der bereits "all in" ist und der letztlich alles tun wird, um nicht in der Ukraine entscheidend zu verlieren oder in Moskau gestürzt zu werden. Deshalb bin ich sehr dafür, dass wir Gewalt mit Gewalt vergelten. Es ist ja nicht so, dass wir eine andere realistische Wahl im Umgang mit Putin hätten. Putin kann nur mit Gewalt gestoppt werden. Die diplomatische Option gibt es nicht mehr. Letztlich wird eine Politik der bewussten Eskalation nicht von den NATO-Mitgliedern ausgehen, sondern von Putin selbst. Er will die Sowjetunion mit allen Mitteln wiederherstellen. Was bleibt dem Westen und der NATO da anderes übrig, als auf Gewalt mit Gewalt zu antworten? Niemand wird zulassen, dass Europa von Putin oder einem anderen überrannt wird.

Scholz ist ein äußerst rationaler Mensch, der diese Eigenschaften auch bei seinem Gegenüber sucht. Man kann davon ausgehen, dass Scholz, sehr zu seiner Überraschung, nichts davon finden wird, wenn er sich mit Putin und seinen Endzielen auseinandersetzt. Kurzum: Containment ist unter diesen Umständen nicht einmal im Entferntesten möglich.

Brian Mulroney, R.I.P.

 From Yahoo News:

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney holds up a piece of paper he had torn during a speech in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Monday. Mulroney was demonstrating that a No vote on the referendum would rip apart the 31 points Quebec got in the Charlottetown agreement.

• 

  6/13

  Mulroney rips up speech

  Prime Minister Brian Mulroney holds up a piece of paper he had torn during a speech in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Monday. Mulroney was demonstrating that a No vote on the referendum would rip apart the 31 points Quebec got in the Charlottetown agreement.

NATO: Has Putin Shit His Pants Yet?

Macron has ruled in the possibility of NATO troops one day being deployed in theatre. If you prefer, Ukraine. No wonder Putin is already sabre-rattling, since the prospect of NATO troops in Ukraine is enough to make your average Russian general shit his pants. 

And then there's plausible deniability pour la forme: Both Germany and Poland are playing good cop to France's bad cop -- no, no, neither of them will even consider deploying forces in Ukraine. Right.

Now to the elephant in the room -- you know, the real possibility that later rather than sooner, Ukraine could be overrun by the Russians. Could happen, eventually. And seriously, if that happens, does anyone with a brain actually think that NATO would allow that? I don't think so. 

So, Macron has fired the trial balloon, to get people used to the idea of NATO coming in to save Ukraine, le cas échéant.

If my name is Putin, I would start wearing industrial diapers because he's going to need 'em if Ukraine ends up on the ropes. 

Ain't it just grand!

Trump: The Resistance.

Hum. Trump wins South Carolina by roughly 60-40. Wasn't Trump predicting as much as 70-30?  The resistance is alive and well and sure, most of them will go Trump in the general.

But Haley is smart to stick it out: hoping for a Hail Mary Pass that sends Trump to jail. And yes, it could happen before November. Now, let's see how she does during Super Tuesday. Will her 40ish numbers hold? If they do, Trump still becomes the nominee but could lose the general if the resistance morphes: you know, more independents either staying home or even moving to Biden to stop Trump. 

It's all psychological. People voting against Trump in bigger numbers if Haley's tally in the primaries stays at roughly 40ish. Conversely, if she sinks like a stone, that's good for Trump with independents.

Here's my take: God and Jesus loathe Trump, so one way or another providence will see to it that Trump never becomes president again.

Evangelicals and others can sell their souls to demagogues but God and Jesus never will. 

Maybe just maybe there's a direct pipeline from God's word to Haley's intitution. 

And if so, may the force be with her.

CPC: Already On Thin Ice.

First, it was Ukraine where we went out of our way to blow it -- over an already existing carbon tax. Made us look like fools, leaving a false impression that the CPC isn't 110% pro-Ukraine. A big mistake.

Now this nonsense on Trans bathrooms, when it's none of our business. That's a matter for females who frequent female bathrooms. It's up to them to decide whether their bathrooms go Trans or not. And if the answer is No, then it's time to put a Trans bathroom in place.

Is this the last gaffe coming out of the OLO? I hope so...otherwise, it's Harper in 2015 all over again.

Navalny: First Piece Of Putin's Puzzle?

Is it part of the master plan? You know, for a guy who's planning to reconstitute the Soviet Union by force? It's immensely helpful if your top drawer political opponent suddenly bites the dust. Essentially, potentially, there is suddenly no one there that the Russian people can rally around in opposition to Putin. So, taken from his perspective, the elimination of Navalny is a masterstroke. But that's short term thinking. Killing political opponents has never blown up in Putin's face: think Nemtsov. But will this be different? No way of really knowing.

So, what's next? Obviously, a push to overrun Ukraine before the fighters arrive next spring. But then, what? Is the Baltics next, Poland, Moldova, etc.? 

It all boils down to this: the free world is funding Ukraine so they can keep Putin out of the rest of Europe. Failure to continue funding means trouble for NATO members. It sort of becomes we in the West can fight Putin now or later, but limiting or withdrawing Ukraine funding only serves to guarantee that NATO fighting Putin's Russia becomes inevitable. And make no mistake, under such a regrettable scenario, NATO can't lose, even if it takes years to beat the Russians.

The Trump useful idiot only makes it paramount that Biden get the aid to Ukraine any way he can. Biden should do it, even if he's later impeached because of it. It's that important to the preservation of the free world and democracy.

Ukraine is winning by not losing, at least for now. But artillery and ammunition shortages are leading to temporary territorial concessions, which can only give the Russians an advantage. 

Biden needs to meet the moment. Anything short of that could lead to Ukraine's demise and further European adventurism by Putin. Should Putin ultimately go there, it'll be WWIII for all of us. A war that the West will inevitably win, much to Putin's peril. 

Quite A Talk With God.

I mean, I never. Great human beings are dropping like flies, while through and through in and out pieces of shit and certifiable demon seeds continue to roam the earth as absolute scourges.

Just wait until I croak -- I'll give God or Jesus one hell of a talking to for letting these scum of the Earth people continue to live among us. 

Navalny: A Russian Hero.

A giant among giants, a man of such tremendous courage who quite willingly returned to Russia knowing full well that he would either be jailed or killed. We don't see a person of such high calibre and conviction come along more than once or twice in a century. The last time was Aquino in the Philippines. These men were larger than life compared to that little man who desperately holds sway in The Kremlin.  

NATO: Once Again Trump Proves He's A M-O-R-O-N.

Like the commercial says, MAGA doesn't care if Trump proves without a doubt that he remains in Putin's pocket...but the elephant in the room is why? Again, MAGA doesn't care.

That idiot says it's Hunkey Dory for Russia to attack a NATO member -- get this, because it's financially delinquent -- in other words, the people of a NATO country don't matter when push comes to shove. Let's have some fun with this usual Trump insanity: Russia attacks the Baltics: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and Trump as president has to help defend them under NATO Article 5, which provides for collective defence of NATO countries. Imagine if Lithuania and Latvia are paid up, but Estonia isn't. So under a future President Bozo, American troops would come to the aid of the first two nations but not their neighbour? Trump is proving that he needs treatment for at least psychological disassociation. But again, MAGA doesn't care.

MAGA seemingly isn't bright enough to figure out, for example, supporting Ukraine militarily does two desirable things: it makes damned sure that Putin can't win and more importantly, from an American perspective, ensures that not a drop of American blood is spilled in combat should Ukraine be overrun by the Russians.  Hello! Put another way, Ukraine is holding the line against demon-seed fascism so the rest of us can continue to live in peace.

MAGA needs to ask BibiBrain what he would do as president if all of Europe was attacked by Putin? Should that happen, is that in the interest of American national security? Can Trump let that pass, even if he previously withdrew from NATO? Nope, not a chance. Otherwise, Putin, just like Hitler, won't stop until a direct clash occurs with U.S. forces defending American territory. That's called reality.