A new war in Africa? Burkina Faso and Mali say they would help defend Niger if coup is reversed.

 

Protesters near the French Embassy in Niamey Niger. Al Jazeera/Reuters.

Burkina Faso and Mali say that any military intervention in Niger, which had a coup last week, would be a declaration of war. Al Jazeera. The joint statement by both countries also said that they would not support any sanctions against Niger. Niger's presidential guard has removed President Mohamad Bazoum, using rising cost of living and the deteriorating security situation. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a 15 member economic group, has said that the coup was a "hostage situation" and threatened military intervention. Both the United States and France have pulled economic support with France being accused of supporting an attack on the Presidential Palace. Burkina Faso, Mali and Guinea have voices support for the coup as all of those countries have had their leadership formed from the coup. 

My Comment:

I haven't been paying too much attention to the coup in Niger since a coup in Africa is hardly uncommon. After all, three other countries mentioned in the report are also ruled by coup plotters. But it looks like that is a mistake as this has the potential to erupt into a regional war. 

Both the ECOWAS alliance, France and the United States are not happy about this coup and there are pretty strong rumors of war. ECOWAS has basically said that a military option. That opinion is not universal as Niger, Guinea, Mali and Burkina Faso are also members of the alliance. The four countries in opposition also divide the alliance geographically and are in a position to support each other.

ECOWAS states. WAHO.

France is also another contender for a military intervention. Niger was a former colony of France and has now stopped shipping Uranium to France. That's a strategic problem for France given their nuclear weapons and the fact that France gets 68% of its energy from nuclear power. They absolutely have a reason to intervene if the coup continues and they remain cut off from uranium. 

America too has reason to intervene as Niger was a major partner against ISIS in West Africa and that's over now. Not to mention it's very possible that Russia will be invited to help with their problems against ISIS. The Wagner Group, famous for their battles in Ukraine but also deeply involved in Africa, would be a major show of Russian dominance in West Africa and the Biden administration does not want that. 

Will war happen? I have no idea. I am far from an expert in the region. I am guessing that some kind of military intervention would happen but who and why is still up in the air. It also depends on the comparative strength of ECOWAS and the three to four country alliance opposed to them. 

If a war happens? Well then the immigration crisis in Europe suddenly gets much worse. There would be huge numbers of actual refugees, instead of economic refugees, that would strain Europe's already strained social services. And it's very possible that ISIS and other terror groups could take advantage of the chaos to restart their terror campaign in Europe. In short, nothing good would come from a major regional war in West Africa. But it might happen anyways... 

Did Governor Ron DeSantis ruin his political career in Florida by running for President?

 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and President Donald Trump. AP. 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis risks ruining his political career in Florida by running for President according to a Republican running for Congress. Business Insider. Ron DeSantis won his last reelection campaign by 19 points against Democrat Charlie Crist, but may have lost much of that goodwill in Florida. GOP Candidate Alan Pincus, who backed DeSantis in that race, said that if DeSantis loses in the primary against Donald Trump his political career in Florida could fizzle. He also said that DeSantis has no chance of winning against Trump. Polling in the Sunshine state backs that up with DeSantis losing against Trump by 17 points in a head to head matchup, 54% to 17%. 

My Comment:

I have said for awhile that running for President in 2024 was one of the dumbest political moves DeSantis could have made. I think Mr. Pincus is right and DeSantis is done. He's already term limited so he cannot run for Governor again after his term ends. But if he had not run against Trump in 2024 he could have easily picked up another state or national level office. And he would have been a shoe in in 2028 if had simply waited four years. He even had a decent chance of being Trump's VP, or some other high ranking position in his administration, which isn't going to happen now.

I do think many Republicans in Florida have turned against DeSantis even though most agree he's one of the best governors the state has had. Many of them feel that they voted for him for governor, not for him to spend the first half of his term trying to run for President. Most Republicans are loyal to Trump and didn't want anyone to run against him, let alone Ron DeSantis. 

It was always telling that DeSantis launched his campaign on Twitter instead of in his home state. I always thought that if he did he would have been drowned out by protesters who were extremely upset with DeSantis for his perceived betrayal of not only Trump, but the voters who put DeSantis in the office in the first place. 

But does that mean that DeSantis won't have a career after the 2024 race? I guess it depends on what happens. If, God forbid, something happens to Trump where he's unwilling or unable to run, DeSantis still has a slim chance of winning, though even then he might lose out to someone like Vivek Ramaswami. I can't see DeSantis beating Trump on his own merits at this point given how terrible his campaign has been run. 

I could see him winning as a congressman somewhere in the state, but anything bigger than that? There isn't a pathway for him in the Senate because both Rubio and Scott are popular senators that he would be unable to beat in a primary challenge. And he can't run for Governor again (though he could have made that happen if he wanted and still might). I generally think that after DeSantis ends his term he's probably done. Voters won't care about him in 2028 after what happened in 2024. 

All of this is a shame as DeSantis was a good governor. He stood up for his people and turned what was a swing state into a deep red one. There are criticisms of his governorship as well, but as someone in a state controlled by a Democrat governor, I would kill to have him as my governor. Deciding to run in 2024 was a big mistake for him... 

Biden administration gives Taiwan $345 million in military aid from our own stockpiles...

 

An anti-amphibious landing exercise in Taiwan. AP.

The Biden administration is giving $345 million in military aid from America's own stockpiles of weapons. AP. The weapons include MANPADS, firearms and missiles. The weapons are in addition to $19 billion in weapons sales to Taiwan, which has been complicated by shortages due to the Ukraine War. These weapons will be able to avoid backlogs as they are being drawn from America's stockpiles. America still has a "one China" policy and doesn't recognize the independence of Taiwan but has been supported militarily for some time. China, of course, condemned the move. 

My Comment:

Hardly a day goes by where the Biden administration gives millions of dollars worth of weapons to some foreign government. It was bad enough that we were doing so to Ukraine but now Taiwan as well? Is there no limit to this?

One wonders where they are going to find these weapons. Firearms shouldn't be a problem, but MANPADS? Seriously? We barely have enough of those for our own forces, let alone giving them to Taiwan. And our missile stocks are low as well. Given the high tensions and slow production rates of missiles and MANPADS, giving away even more of them seems like a terrible idea. 

I don't have a problem with selling weapons to Taiwan. If they are willing to pay that's absolutely fine and is even helpful as it helps our weapons industries. But just giving weapons away? That's something totally different. I don't understand why Taiwan is a priority over our own forces here.

It also makes me pretty nervous that the Biden administration is trying to start yet another war. China is already upset that our support for Taiwan happens in the first place. They are not going to be happy about this at all, and may even consider it a casus belli for war. My gut says that China is not ready for war yet but it certainly could happen. They consider Taiwan to be their clay and they are willing to fight for it. 

Unlike Ukraine at least, we do have a strategic interest in Taiwan. They are a major source of computer chips that we need for just about everything these days. And I am a lot more sympathetic to the Taiwanese people than I would ever be to the the Ukrainians. But I do think we should actually have a discussion if going to war with China, a war that we could very well lose or have it expand into a nuclear exchange, is actually worth it.   

Our political leadership is too old. Both Mitch McConnell and Dianne Feinstein have "Biden" moments.

 

Mitch McConnell as he froze up. ABC/AP.

Yesterday Mitch McConnell froze up during a q and a session with the media, raising concerns about his health. ABC News. McConnell stopped mid sentence during the session and stared blankly, unblinking, for 20 seconds before being helped away by two other senators at the session. McConnell was able to recover and he returned to the podium and was able to answer several questions, sometimes with long answers. When questioned about the incident McConnell said he was "fine". McConnell is 81 and was briefly hospitalized after falling and getting a concussion last March. 

Today Senator Dianne Feinstein stumbled during a vote for a Senate Appropriations Committee vote. NBC News.  Instead of simply saying "aye" to confirm the vote she began a speech about why she supported the bill. Her colleagues quickly told her to "just say aye" and she did. Feinstein also accidently voted against a measure she is in favor in before quickly changing her vote. Feinstein is 90 and has serious questions about her health as she missed 91 votes while recovering for shingles. 

My Comment:

To begin I want to say that I take no pleasure in seeing our leadership apparently succumb to age and infirmity. I am certainly no fan of Feinstein and my feelings towards McConnell aren't particularly warm but it's still sad to see anyone having these kinds of problems. Same when Biden has one of his senility moments, it's sad even though he's a terrible person and president. 

Regardless, it seems like we should be having a discussion about why these people are in power in the first place. McConnell is 81 and Feinstein is 90. Biden is 80 as well. And none of them are healthy. Why are they still allowed to serve? Why isn't age a consideration when these folks are getting elected? 

Party loyalty seems to be a big part of it. Both Feinstein and McConnell are powerful members of their respective parties and have accomplished a lot. McConnell especially is responsible for the recent victories in the Supreme Court. Both would be hard to take down and there is little evidence that their parties want them to step down. 

McConnell is probably the healthiest of the three as this is one of the first incidents he had, but it was probably one of the more disturbing incidents. He really did look like he was out of it for a good 20 seconds. Feinstein and Biden have been having incidents like this for years now. 

There is always the possibility of voting these people out but how realistic is that anyways? Very few people would be willing to primary these folks and even if they did they have the support of their parties. And though I think Biden will be voted out, his main opponent is Trump, who is 77 himself. To be fair, Trump is a lot more spry and "with it" than Biden is, clearly, but that could change fairly fast as he ages as well. Still, it's unlikely we will have a younger president any time soon. 

Regardless, the whole thing reminds me of the last leadership of the Soviet Union. Between Khrushchev and Gorbachev the Union had three elderly dotards as premiers, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko. Though the much younger Gorbachev attempted to right the ship, the damage these old leaders did eventually lead to the fall of the Union. It's impossible to not see the parallels between our current government and the later Soviet leaders...  

UFO/UAP hearings in Congress, witnesses claim UFOs are common and that there is a secret UFO recovery program.

 

From left to right, Ryan Graves, David Grusch and David Fravor. 

In highly anticipated Congressional testimony three witnesses claimed that encounters with UFOs/UAPs are common and that the United States has a secret UFO recovery program that operates without Congressional oversight. CBS News. David Grusch, who served on the Pentagon's UAP task forces said that he had been informed that not only was there a secret UFO recovery program but that it had recovered "non human" craft and recovered "biologics" from those crashes. Two former Navy officers also described their encounters with UAPs, including the infamous "tic tac" incident. There is a bipartisan push for disclosure on what the Pentagon knows about the UFO issue and they are taking accusations of programs running without Congressional approval. 

My Comment:

It doesn't sound like there wasn't anything too shocking or new in this testimony, which isn't surprising. The witnesses mostly repeated earlier claims from what I understand but they did so under oath. That is something that's pretty significant on its own but it's not the disclosure that many people were hoping for. 

I don't doubt the claims of the former Navy guys. Given how many reports I have heard now of encounters with unidentified objects I do think that something is going on. What that is isn't clear but I do tend to believe their testimony, especially since many of these encounters are not just based on visual detection, but electronic as well. 

David Grusch's testimony is a little less believable, largely because it's third hand. I don't think he is lying or anything, it's just not enough proof that the programs actually exist. It's possible that the people he talked to were feeding him misinformation or just lying for the sake of lying. We won't know for sure unless Congress gets to the bottom of it and actually releases what they find. 

Do I believe that the Pentagon has an UFO recovery program that has recovered technology and bodies? I have no idea. This testimony didn't really provide any more evidence of that. I do think that if any kind of UFO was recovered than this program would have to exist though. No way that the military would simply ignore a crashed UFO, it would have to try and recover and study it. 

The real mystery is why any of this is happening. The UFO issue is not a new one and has been a thing since before World War II. Up until the last decade or so it's not been something that the government has cared too much about. Indeed, usually this issue was laughed off at best or actively suppressed at worst. 

None of the options make any sense realistically. If the testimony is legit that means not only are we not alone in the universe but that the aliens are actually here and have unknown possibly dangerous motivations. It also means that there are unaccountable government programs trying to do God knows what with the technology and bodies, which isn't a good thing either. 

Another option is that the whole thing is a disinformation campaign, a psyop. That seems even more fantastical than aliens to be honest. If the whole thing is nothing more than a distraction, what on earth are they trying to distract from? There isn't that much in the news right now that the powers that be would want to hide. 

A more realistic possibility is that congress and the military have been taken over by true believers in UFOs. It's very possible that the lunatics are running the asylum on this issue and that nothing is actually happening outside of the unexplained encounters. Most people believe that the government is hiding stuff when it comes to UFOs and we shouldn't forget that the late senator Harry Reid was a true UFO believe and he got much of this ball rolling. 

I would also point out that the reaction to this from Congress has been one of concern, not panic. That tells me a couple of things. First, it means that we aren't likely to be destroyed by alien invaders anytime soon, if they knew that was happening they wouldn't be able to keep it quiet. Second it means that they actually don't know what is going on. 

Another common thing I have heard is that there is some kind of external pressure for disclosing UFO information. Again, that doesn't make much sense because if there was something big like that happening I don't think it would be secret. What does make sense to me is that the idea that UFOs could make the war between Russia and Ukraine (but actually NATO) even worse. If UFOs exist and have an interest in our military activity, as has been claimed, the chances of some kind of incident involving UFOs leading to World War III could be unacceptably high. The other option is that some other country is going to come forward with their own evidence and the USA is trying to outmaneuver them, but I would have no idea who that would be. 

Another Koran burning in Denmark infuriates the Muslim world.

 

Protesters in Saana, Yemen reacting to the Koran burning. Reuters. 

Another Koran burning in Denmark has infuriated much of the Muslim world and increased tensions between Europe and the Middle East. Reuters. A group called Danish Patriots have carried out the burnings in Denmark, often in front of embassies, with the most recent one occurring near the embassies of Turkey and Egypt. They follow similar incidents in Sweden. The European governments say they cannot do anything about the protests due to freedom of speech and demonstration while governments in the Muslim world say the protests should not be allowed. 

My Comment:

Looks like this is continuing and I fear that there is going to be a reprisal for these incidents. It's pretty clear that the Muslim world is absolutely angry about these burnings of the Koran and I think there is a very good chance that they may retaliate with a terror attack. 

I, of course, support the right of these protesters to burn the Koran. No religion should be free from criticism and all speech should be protected, even if there are likely to be consequences for the speech. Indeed, my biggest criticism of Islam is the fact that they often react this way to people criticizing their religion. I myself had a picture of Mohamad as my profile picture on social media for a very long time. 

Still, it feels weird that this is happening now. Islamic terrorism has essentially evaporated since the peak in 2016. So why are these people protesting? My guess is because they are sick of Muslim immigrants, which I kind of understand. Still, there are ways to protest that which won't result in Muslims getting angered. Indeed, I assume that angering Muslims is probably the main purpose of these protests. 

Indeed, I mentioned in the last post on this topic that the Koran burnings remind me a lot of the Westboro Baptist Church, a group that famously protested funerals largely to anger people. Burning the Koran has the same effect and I think there is a good chance that this is just a major trolling attempt and the people behind it just want to see the chaos erupt. 

I do wonder if the European governments here will continue to stand for freedom of speech. Indeed, I am surprised that they haven't backed down already and further cracked down on the remaining freedoms in Europe. Given the stakes I worry that they will eventually back down. 

After all, it's not just the threat of a retaliatory terror attack that Europe is worried about. That is a huge deal though and it's not a minor concern, the memories of the war with ISIS are fairly fresh. But these burnings are hurting relations between Europe and the Muslim world and, most notably, could result in Turkey blocking the application of Sweden into NATO. That's a fairly huge deal and if it comes to pass it would be a major consequence. It remains to be seen if Europe will continue to stick up for their supposed values or back down for practical considerations... 

China is reportedly sending body armor and drones to Russia for use in Ukraine.

 

Chinese body armor. Politico. 

China is reportedly sending large numbers of body armor, drones and other "duel use" technology to Russia for use in the Ukraine War. Politico. Documents secured by Politico show large orders of body armor being sent to Russia, with multiple orders of 100,000 vests and helmets, along with large orders of ceramics that can be used in plate carriers. Other orders include drones, which can be used for surveillance or even dropping grenades and thermal optics. Duel use technology is defined as tech that can be used for both peaceful and military purposes and it is a way how China evades Western sanctions for sending military technology to Russia. China has also sent much of the same duel use technology to Ukraine but they are now sending less to Ukraine then they do to Russia. Some of the companies that are being used to send duel use technology may be shell companies set up by Russia. 

My Comment:

Very interesting. China is supporting Russia in the war in Ukraine, but doing it in a way with plausible deniability. They aren't giving them weapons, so far, but they are giving them some extremely useful technology including armor, drones and thermal optics. 

This also explains why Russian troops are now a lot better equipped then they were at the start of the war. I have heard that their body armor is a lot better now. If the Chinese are sending these huge orders of vests and helmets that would explain it. 

The drones and thermal optics are very useful to. Drone warfare has been huge in Ukraine and these drones sent by China would be very useful. And it's not hard to convert drones into being used in combat. ISIS showed how you could convert a commercially available drone into either a suicide drones or something that can drop grenades and bombs. And the advantages of thermal optics is pretty obvious. 

My main question is what is the quality of this stuff? Chinese manufacturing has a reputation of making chintzy crap. The idea of wearing body armor made in China is more than a little concerning to me. If the reports of the body armor being decent is true then this is a moot point but still, it would be something to worry about if I was a Russian soldier. 

To be fair to China, they have been selling to Ukraine as well. They have pulled back on doing so but I think that has more to do with Ukraine running out of money rather than any major shift in support for Russia. Ukraine probably doesn't have the cash to buy these dual use items from China and I doubt China would accept their credit if they think they are going to lose the war. 

Biden will attempt to expedite deliveries of F-16s to Ukraine despite training program not being set up.

 

F-16s. Politico/AP.

The Biden administration will attempt to expedite deliveries of F-16s to Ukraine despite a needed training program not being set up. Politico. The almost 45 year old fighters are supposedly being delivered before the end of the year. However, it is unclear who would provide these fighters as most countries appear reluctant to send their planes. The US has also hesitated in setting up the training system that would be required to train Ukrainian pilots. However, even the United States admits that the jets would not be gamechangers. 

My Comment:

I will believe that the F-16 will be sent to Ukraine when it actually happens and not a minute before. As of right now it seems clear that Europe isn't exactly in a hurry to send these fighters to Ukraine and it's the same with the United States. 

A big reason why is the failure of the Ukrainian offensive. Had they actually made any kind of progress at all it would have been a lot easier to send these F-16s to Ukraine. But I think even Europe is realizing that sending good money after bad isn't a great idea. 

Another reason is that these fighters would not be able to do much. Russia has air superiority now and has a huge advantage in air defense. F-16's are a full generation behind modern fighter jets and are not going to be able to compete in the incredibly lethal combat environment. Indeed, modern Russian fighters will be able to outrange them and Russian air defenses would be able to easily shoot them out of the skies. The only way I can think of the Ukrainians using the F-16s effectively is by launching stand off munitions that can hit outside of Russia's air defense screen. And even then I would say they would face heavy casualties. 

This is another reason that everyone is reluctant to send these fighter jets. After the extreme casualties Leopard tanks and Bradly Fighting Vehicles took in the offensive, the credibility of those weapons systems has been shattered. The same thing could happen to the F-16s, which are actively being sold as an effective weapon, despite being 45 years old. 

The whole situation reminds me of the situation with Abrams tanks. Those were promised as well and they haven't shown up on the battlefield yet either. Supposedly they are being sent as well, but again, I will believe it when I see it. I just think that Europe and America finally are starting to understand that Ukraine isn't winning the war... 

US volunteer in Ukraine describes how Russian mines are a gamechanger.

 

An Ukrainian mine clearing soldier with a Russian anti-tank mine in the foreground. Business Insider. 

A US volunteer in Ukraine has described how Russian mines are a gamechanger in the conflict. Business Insider. A former Special Forces solider that works with a landmine removal organization described the massive numbers of mines deployed in Ukraine. Ryan Hendrickson was quoted as saying "everything is mined" and said that in one field alone he and his team found over 700 anti-tank mines. He also said that Ukraine has so many land mines deployed that they might never all be cleared. Hendrickson and his team work in rear areas but Ukrainian troops have to operate on the front line and have taken heavy casualties. Both Ukrainian and American generals have confirmed that land mines are a major reason why the Ukrainian offensive has not achieved its goals. 

My Comment:

I'm of two minds on this. I do think that western media is overstating the effect landmines have on the battlefield and massively underreporting the massive advantage Russia has in artillery, air support, armor and pure numbers of soldiers. Without these things the mines alone would not have been enough to stop the offensive. 

With that being said, it is very clear that the mines have played a major role in slowing and stopping the Ukraine offensive. Indeed, they, along with artillery, have pretty much stopped Ukraine from using their armor and forced a switch to "mosquito" tactics which involve small squads of soldiers advancing feet at a time. This has drastically reduced armor casualties but also massively increased casualties among Ukrainian soldiers. 

Complicating things was the fact that many of Ukraine's mine clearing vehicles were destroyed in the early part of the offensive. Indeed, the Finish provided Leopard 2r mine clearing variants were destroyed right away due to artillery, mines and rockets. That means that unprotected infantry have to go out and clear the mines personally, which is basically a death sentence in combat. 

Russia's extreme defenses are just another reason why Ukraine's offensive was ill advised at best and an absolute disaster at worst. Indeed, if Ukraine had invested more in mines and defenses they could have done massive damage to Russia's war machine. But that wasn't what the powers that be in the West wanted, they wanted big showy offensives, which played right into the hands of the Russians. 

I know why Ukraine did what they did, they were attempting to isolate Crimea. They wanted to drive to the Sea of Azov and that, combined with their attacks on the Kerch Bridge, would have cut off the region and forced Russia to either escalate dramatically, possibly drawing NATO into the war, or come to some kind of negotiated settlement. It failed, obviously, and may have even cost Ukraine the war. 

Regardless of the outcome of the war, the massive minefields left over will be a major problem for whoever controls the region after it. These mines will be there until someone clears them out or they explode which means they will be killing people long after the war. And clearing those mines will take an extreme amount of time and effort and there is always a chance of missing them. Given the huge number of artillery shells and now cluster bomblets along with the mines people will continue to be mauled and killed by these weapons long after the war ends...  

Democrats try to censor RFK Jr during hearing on internet censorship...

 

RFK Jr. testifying to Congress. Fox News/AFP.

House Democrats tried to remove Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from a congressional hearing on censorship. Fox News. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) tired to vote to end the testimony claiming RFK Jr was violating a rule that is supposed to prevent defamatory or degrading to others. The vote failed due to Republicans controlling the house while 8 Democrats voted to essentially censor RFK Jr's testimony on censorship. Wasserman Schultz referred to comments made by RFK Jr. that were interpreted as being anti-Semitic. RFK Jr. was then able to testify how he and his campaign had been censored by tech companies on behalf of the Biden administration. He also said that censorship was against the values of the Democratic Party. 

My Comment:

This is probably the best example of how far the Democratic Party has fallen. The party's commitment to free speech was one of the only virtues I admired from them back when I was younger. Those days are beyond gone and the Democrats have become the party of censorship. 

Indeed, the only reason why the Democrats wanted to silence RFK Jr is because he is damaging to them politically. I have and will continue to be critical of RFK Jr, I think a decent portion of what he believes is absolute nonsense. But it's the fact that he is critical of the Democrats and their censorship campaign via the tech companies that got them angry here, not the accusations of anti-Semitism (which were overblown in the first place). 

I also think that if RFK Jr's accusations are true, and I have no reason to believe that they are not, he has grounds for a lawsuit. Having YouTube ban his campaign announcement for blatantly political reasons and at behest of the Biden Administration is an obvious and extreme 1st amendment violation and in a sane world he would get compensated for it. 

I don't share RFK's extreme anti-vaccine views. With the exception of the Coronavirus vaccines (which are both not very effective at stopping the disease and are hardly necessary at this point) and mandates, I am pretty pro-vaccine. Despite that I do think that his views need to be protected as sometimes he could be right. He's certainly right about censorship. 

The bigger concern is that the Biden administration and his Democrat allies are censoring the only other credible candidate running against him. Though this pales in comparison to what they are doing to Donald Trump, it's still an effort to rig the election. If RFK Jr. was able to fully reach voters without the threat of censorship he would likely be doing better in the polling right now, perhaps even lead against Joe Biden. 

Indeed, I have been warning about this for years now, Democrats have been threatening voices that speak out against them for a long time now. And it's not just Republicans. If you are Democrat that speaks out against Joe Biden like RFK does than you get censored and attacked by the media. It has nothing to do with if RFK is a good guy or if what he says is credibly, some of it is and much of it isn't, it's about him being critical of the Democratic Party, even though he's a member of the party. 

I do think it is backfiring against the Democrats though. RFK is probably going to get a boost in the polls because of this. When you censor things they tend to grow beyond the censorship, especially now that there is a social media company that doesn't censor very much at all in Twitter. I don't think it will be enough to counter the anti-Semitism accusations against RFK Jr, but his campaign is far from over. 

Female military recruit reports being forced to shower with two male-to-female transgendered people.

 

A female soldier. Fox News. 

A female military recruit has reported being forced to shower with two male-to-female transgendered people. Fox News. The report was raised by Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) during a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting. The recruit is an 18 year old and she was forced to sleep between two men who had undergone hormone replacement therapy (HRT) but had not had any surgery to remove their genitals and she also had to shower with the men. She reported to Rounds that she had no options other than resignation and that she didn't feel comfortable reporting the situation to her commanders. Senator Rounds pointed to the incident as a possible reason why the military recruitment is well below goals. The Senator heard about the incident from the Attorney General of the South Dakota National Guard. 

My Comment:

As expected the downsides of allowing transgender people to serve in the military are becoming apparent. Women are not going to be comfortable working with male-to-female transgender people and to be honest, the opposite situation is not going to be very appreciated either. 

Much of this is cultural. Americans are skittish about nudity in the first place but are especially so when it comes to males and females being naked together.  Indeed, communal showers are not something that is particularly liked in America in the first place, even when those showers are single gender. We are far from that scene in Starship Troopers where everyone of either sex was showring together. 

Having a transgender person in the shower just makes everything more uncomfortable even if there is zero chance of sexual assault. People generally don't want to see nude members of the opposite sex while they are showering and I don't actually think that the genitals really matter that much. People can tell if someone was born a man or woman in the majority of cases and aren't going to be comfortable regardless. 

Both showering and sleeping are times when you are especially vulnerable. Women also have to worry about rape and sexual assault as well. It's not that men don't have to worry about that, but women aren't going to be able to fight off a MTF like a man could fight off a FTM. Given that the military already has a problem with sexual assault among female recruits this situation is just making it even more likely.  

Another factor is that many of these MTF's are attracted to women. If that's the case there is a good chance that they are turned on, both by seeing a bunch of women naked and showering as well as forcing them to watch them shower as well. That's going to up the discomfort level dramatically, epically if "she" gets an erection. 

The blinders and bias of this issue means that if a female recruit is hurt or harassed by a transgender person it would be very difficult if not impossible to report it. Indeed, this recruit was smart and contacted a sympathetic government official. But if a recruit was assaulted and didn't have access to a person like that and when through the chain of command? Not only would it be covered up she would see here career destroyed. 

It's little wonder why people aren't signing up for the military. There might be a few woman who wouldn't care about this kind of situation but there are few and far between and the rest are not going to want to sign up if they know they have to shower with men, transgender or not. And other recruits? Nobody who is even remotely skeptical about the transgender issue, which is most people, isn't going to want to join the military if they know they could be punished for objecting to this kind of thing. 

That isn't the only factor of course. Wokeness is a huge factor but not the only one. It's very clear that the military isn't a place for white people in general and even minorities are not going to be happy with the way things are going. And nobody wants to be sent to the Ukraine meat grinder to fight for Joe Biden, of all people.

The thing is that there is such an easy solution for this problem, just ban transgender people from serving. Whatever benefit these people have for serving, which can't be much, it is obviously outweighed by the fact that nobody is going to want to join the military under these circumstances. Perhaps there could be some kind of compromise where only those in critical roles were allowed to serve but even then it wouldn't fix this shower issue. 

Russia has amassed a huge force of 100,000 troops and 900 tanks to attack Eastern Ukraine.

 

An Ukrainian MLRS. New York Post/Reuters.

Russia has amassed a huge force of 100,000 troops and 900 takes to attack Eastern Ukraine. Politico. Russia is threatening the city of Kupiansk, which served as a logistics hub during the early phase of the war before Ukraine took the city back last year. Ukraine said that the build up is to pull reserves from Ukraine's offensive. The 100,000 troops is similar to what Russia used in Afghanistan when they invaded the country in the 1980's. 

The New York Post reports that the Russian offensive has begun. Ukraine has admitted that the situation near Kupiansk is "complicated" and that Russia is advancing in the region. Both Ukraine and Russia report heavy fighting in the area with Russia claiming to have taken 1.2 miles in the first day. Ukraine reports that the troops fighting there are prison conscripts and may not have the morale to make a major breakthrough. 

My Comment:

It's unclear how significant this buildup and offensive is. If the numbers quoted in the articles are real than Ukraine is outgunned and overwhelmed. 100,000 troops, 900 tanks and 555 artillery systems is no laughing matter, it's a huge force about half the size of the one that invaded Ukraine in the first place. 

The attack will certainly require a response from Ukraine and they will be forced to respond even if it is a feint, though in this case I doubt it. This will draw the reserves that are desperately needed to keep any semblance of an offensive in southern Ukraine and near Bakhmut. Those offensives are not doing well in the first place so this means that the offensive is likely over. 

Will Russia make a major breakthrough? It's possible. Like I said, they have a massive force, it's the Ukrainians that are saying that they have 100,000 troops. If it is true I can't imagine that Ukraine has the firepower to break up such a huge formation of troops. 

The problem is that Russia now faces the same problem Ukraine had during its offensive. It's a lot harder to attack than it is to defend and doing so often results in heavy casualties. I would not be surprised if Russia loses a lot of troops, tanks and weapons in the offensive. 

The good news for the Russians is that they don't face as many problems as the Ukrainians did during their offensive. Unlike the Ukrainians they enjoy air support and an artillery advantage. They are also attacking an area that has not had much time to build up defenses in the area. Russia had a huge amount of time to mine and entrench southern Ukraine, Ukraine has not had anywhere near as long to build up defenses around Kupiansk since they have only retook it since this fall. 

They also have an advantage in the fact that Ukraine's offensive mauled many of their best units equipped with their best gear. Those weapons would have been very useful in fighting against this offensive. 

Another concern I have for Russia is the fact that they might be overextending themselves. They have had major problems with this during the Ukraine war, first near Kiev and then in the Kupiansk region. If they do make a major breakthrough they might not have the troops to defend. 100,000 troops is a lot but if they take a lot of land it could get ugly for them. 

Regardless, this attack is more about the west than Ukraine itself. Support for Ukraine is already wavering due to the poor results from their offensive. If Russia makes a major breakthrough and recaptured Kupiansk it could break support from Ukraine. Already I am hearing rumors that Ukraine was given an ultimatum, make a major breakthrough by November or the support gets cut off. That timeline might be moved up if Ukraine gets defeated here... That could force an end to the war, assuming Ukraine doesn't just collapse entirely. 

RFK Jr gets attacked for "anti-Semitism". Is there any truth to the complaints?

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Politico/AFP/Getty.

As you may know Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the only serious Democrat running against Joe Biden, is caught up in an anti-Semitism row. Predictably, all the usual suspects condemned RFK Jr., along with members of his own family and the White House. So what did RFK say? Listen for yourself:

If you are unwilling or unable to watch the video RFK Jr. claims that there has been work done to target bioweapons based on racial and ethnic genetic groups. He also said that Covid appears to target people by race with Whites and Black being more susceptible to the disease than Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews. He also raised the possibility that both US and Chinese biolabs are engaged on ethnically targeting bioweapons. 

So, was any of this true? It's very hard to tell. I do think it is possible to create a bioweapon that would target people based on their genetics but I haven't seen evidence that this is actually happening. And even if it did there isn't evidence that Covid was targeted that way and it's also not clear that the Coronavirus that escaped was designed as an actual bioweapon. 

The other problem is that I don't think I have heard that Whites and Blacks are more susceptible to the disease in the first place. Everything I have heard about the virus is that age and infirmity is what the Coronavirus targets, not your race. And the theory would have to account for the fact that Africa had some of the best survival rates for the pandemic while China had some of the worst. 

In general I think this is the kind of thing that RFK Jr. does. He really is a conspiracy theorist when it comes to vaccines. He isn't just opposed to vaccine mandates and the Coronavirus vaccines in particular, which there is a strong argument for, but basically all vaccines. Is there a chance he is right here? I doubt it, there just isn't the evidence to support the kind of grand conspiracy theory that there are ethnically targeted bioweapons out there. 

But is this anti-Semitism? Not at all. If anything it's anti-Chinese, since they are the ones who RFK suggested made the virus (which, to be fair, they actually did, everyone believes it's a lab leak now). He did say that Jews are less susceptible to the Coronavirus but that may even be true and also doesn't really suggest that they were spared on purpose. All he did was mention Jews being more resistant. 

Will this hurt RFK? Not among his supporters. The powers that be already hated him largely because of his vaccine stance and the fact that he is going up against Joe Biden, so that's status quo ante. RFK's supporters largely are opposed to vaccines and aren't going to care if he makes statements like this since many of them believe the same things. 

But it may prevent him from overtaking Biden. Democrats seem especially vulnerable to these kinds of attacks and it may prevent more mainstream Democrats from supporting him. And accusations of anti-Semitism are extremely powerful among the mainstream, it's only on the fringes of the right and left where they are less important. 

Regardless, something like this was always going to happen with RFK. With him being an outsider in the Democratic Party he was either going to have to play the role of designated loser, like Bernie Sanders did in 2020 and 2016, or he was going to be destroyed. His comments here were just the opening they needed to move on RFK and it may be enough 

Ukraine lost 30% of equipment since the start of their offensive, 20% in the first two weeks.

 

Destroyed Bradly Fighting Vehicles and Leopard tanks. New York Times/Russian Defense Ministry.

Ukraine lost 30% of equipment since the start of their offensive, 20% in the first two weeks. New York Times. The rate of loss decreased as Ukraine switched from aggressive tactics that were causing massive casualties to more attritional warfare using artillery and drones. In two months the counter offensive has made only five miles of progress, far short of the 60 it was predicted to get. Much of the problem is the place Ukraine chose to attack as they area has been heavily mined and has caused major casualties for Ukraine's armor. Western provided weapons have taken heavy casualties with both Leopard tanks and Bradly Fighting Vehicles being destroyed or captured in large numbers. NATO officials downplayed the casualties saying the offensive could still succeed. 

Since the New York Times often paywalls their articles, here is another source from I24. 

My Comment:

All of this was well known to people who were even casually following the Ukraine War. Ukraine took such horrendous casualties that they were forced to switch tactics and basically canceled their offensive. They pulled back their armor and advanced with infantry, which caused tremendous casualties, which should be expected when you don't have armor and air support. 

What is important is that the New York Times, America's paper of record is admitting this. Most media outlets have been insanely pro-Ukraine to the point where they are ignoring reality. But now the evidence is so clear that even the New York Times has to admit the tremendous casualties Ukraine has taken in their offensive. 

Of course they are still downplaying things, having NATO and Ukrainian talking heads claiming that the offensive is still on and will succeed eventually. They play up the gift of cluster munitions but fail to mention why they were sent in the first place, they are the only 155mm rounds America has left to send. 

Ukraine switching tactics is a losing game as well. There was at least a small chance of a breakthrough when the offensive just started but now there is little chance of anything happening. With Ukraine now using "mosquito tactics" where unsupported infantry advances without armor casualties are growing. At least the armor provided protection for Ukrainian soldiers. 

And switching to attritional warfare? That's not going to work either. Russia has a dramatically larger population base to draw from and still has a million man reserve to draw from. Their industrial base is much larger and isn't anywhere near running out of resources, unlike the West. Indeed, switching to attritional warfare plays into Russia's hands as that has been their main strategy since the Kiev withdrawal. 

Mine warfare is a major reason why Ukraine failed. They just did not have the mine clearance to get through the tough defenses they were facing. I understand why they attacked where they did, they wanted to cut off Crimea which would have gotten them into stronger negotiating position, but it was probably always doomed to fail since they didn't have the ability to clear those mines. 

Either way, it appears that the war in Ukraine has moved on since the offensive. I am guessing that Ukraine will try to continue to advance, their funding depends on it, but they will end up taking further extreme casualties. But that will only happen in limited parts of the front with most lines remaining the static grinding warfare we have seen in Bakhmut. 

Mike Pence won't be the 2024 candidate...

 

Mike Pence. White House photo. 

Mike Pence was booed during a testy exchange with Tucker Carlson at a conservative event over his support of Ukraine. The Hill. Pence has emerged as one of the main supporters of the Ukraine war in GOP field as opposed to Donald Trump who is opposed to the war and Ron DeSantis who questions it. Pence was booed as he again voiced his support of sending more weapons to Ukraine. Carlson, who is also a critic of the Ukraine War, was cheered when he asked if Pence was concerned about the sorry state of America and Pence answered "that's not my concern" and said America could be both a leader of the free world as well as improving things at home. Carlson also pushed the religious Pence on Ukraine's discrimination of Russian religious minorities in the country with Pence saying he pushed Zelenskyy on the issue the last time he met with him. 

Tucker: "I'm sorry, Mr. Vice President. You are distressed that the Ukrainians don't have enough American tanks? Every city in the United States has become much worse over the past three years. Drive around. There's not one city that's gotten better. And it's visible. Our… pic.twitter.com/6bJ8aKSPhs

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) July 14, 2023

My Comment: 

The Hill is downplaying how big of a gaffe Pence made here by not mentioning the fact that he said that "That's not my concern" after Tucker Carlson pushed him on the issue. It is a horrible own goal to essentially say you care more about Ukraine than the suffering of the American people. He attempted to recover afterwards (you can see it in the full Twitter clip above) but it was probably too late. 

It was a real "let them eat cake" move by Pence and one that anti-war media is going to have a field day with. A lot of them probably won't show Pence trying to recover, which I am glad that I was able to do. I don't like Pence anymore (especially now that he has gone full-Ukraine war) but we should still be fair to him. 

I do get the feeling that Pence actually believes in the Ukraine war, which is more than a little scary. Skepticism of the war is growing on the right and Pence isn't likely to get a boost in the polls from this. There are a few people on the right that still support the war but the top three non-Pence candidates, Trump, DeSantis and Ramaswamy are all generally opposed to continuing the war and that represents about 75% of the GOP. And not everyone that doesn't support those candidates is pro-war, some are just anti-Trump. It's not a winning issue for Pence and if he was smart he would back down. 

Unfortunately, Pence did the opposite in the worst way possible. Everyone who is concerned that America is spending so much on Ukraine at the expense of everything else is not going to be happy with Pence's attitude here. They just heard that Pence is not concerned with there issues and that is not going to be a good move for him. 

As for Tucker Carlson I think this was a good move for him. Calling out Pence like this did help advance the cause of peace in Ukraine, which is obviously something Carlson cares about. From what I understand Carlson did a good job pressing candidates on his core issues and he may have ensured that Pence isn't the candidate. 

Indeed, Pence probably sensed a trap from Carlson and was annoyed that he was even asked the question, which may explain his flippant attitude.  But Pence is an experienced politician and should have been a lot smarter than this. I don't know how his campaign can recover... 

Secret Service closes investigation into who left cocaine in the White House.

 

Joe Biden at the White House. Fox News/AP.

Citing a lack of evidence the Secret Service has closed an investigation into who left cocaine in the White House. Fox News. The cocaine was found in a locker used to store electronic devices, though there had been reports that the drugs were found in the White House library and then near the West Executive Entrance. The key to the locker is also missing. The Secret Service also claims there are no logs for the lockers and there was no video surveillance covering the lockers either. 500 people entered the foyer where the cocaine was found the weekend it was found. 

My Comment:

No surprise that this investigation ended without a suspect. Indeed, it seemed like all the White House wanted was for this to go away for pretty obvious reasons. Given that the President's son is a cocaine addict they want to avoid even the implication that this cocaine was Hunter Biden's.  

Was the cocaine Hunter Biden's? Probably not. Supposedly the Biden family wasn't even in the White House that weekend and I doubt it would have been there very long. Plus, I doubt Hunter Biden would have been in the area that the cocaine was found in. Same with other high ranking suspect like Joe Biden himself. 

If it was Hunter Biden's cocaine then there would have had to have been a major coverup. That is certainly possible, the federal government has gone to bat for the Biden family before. Indeed, this would hardly be the first time that Hunter Biden's drug use has been downplayed. The problem is that you would have to believe that the Secret Service moved the drugs from wherever it was originally found into the locker that it was officially found. That is certainly possible but that's a level of corruption that I would hope the Secret Service is not capable off. 

It's a lot more likely that the cocaine belonged to one of the 500 people that entered the White House from that foyer. The Secret Service knows who these people are and could easily interview them but for whatever reason it's not a priority for them. Sure, they supposedly lack evidence but that wouldn't preclude someone from confessing once confronted. The fact that they aren't even doing that is a big sign that they just want this to go away. 

If the Secret Service version of events is true then that is almost more disturbing than the drug belonging to Biden or one of his staffers. If anyone can just walk into the White House with a baggie of cocaine, who is to say that they couldn't do so with explosives or chemical weapons? Supposedly there were no logs for this locker and no video cameras on the lockers either. If true then I can see why there is no evidence, but why on earth would there be no coverage for this area? These are phone lockers, not a changing room, so there is no privacy concern. And the White House is supposed to be one of the most secure places in the country. It's very disturbing... 

Greece and Turkey vow to repair ties after years of high tensions.

 

Prime Minster Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece and President Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. Reuters. 

Greece and Turkey are vowing to repair ties after years of high tensions between the two nations. Reuters. The two countries have been historic foes and have had high tensions in recent years over water rights, border issues, energy resources and the ethnically divided status of Cyprus. Turkey also accused Greece of blocking a sale of F-16's. However, tensions began to thaw when Greece was one of the first nations to send support and help after a devastating earthquake hit Turkey in February. Prime Minster Mitsotakis of Greece and Tayyip Erdogan met with each other this week and released identical statements vowing more open communication and more frequent contact. The two countries are traditional foes but are also members of NATO. 

My Comment:

Just a quick post tonight since not too much is happening today that I saw. This story will probably not get too much attention but is fairly important. Turkey and Greece have been at each others throats since the fall of Byzantium during the siege of Constantinople. More recently there was the Greek Genocide and eventual population transfer that happened around World War I. In short, there is a lot of bad blood between the two countries. 

Relations between Turkey and Greece were always a major elephant in the room for the NATO alliance. Indeed, several times it seemed like the two allies would go to war. How that would work between two NATO allies would have been an interesting question, but it appears to be a moot one now. 

Speaking of NATO this is a win for them. Having two members of the alliance at each others throat is not exactly a picture of unity. Having Turkey and Greece getting along is a big deal as any conflict between the two countries could have broken the alliance. That seems less likely to happen now. 

That being said it is still possible that this warming of relations is only temporary. There is a ton of history of bad blood and some of the issues they are trying to deal with are extremely difficult to take care of. Cyprus alone is a huge thorn in each side and not one I see an easy solution too. 

Regardless, in the short term at least, this is probably a good thing. The last thing the world needs is a war between Turkey and Greece, given the impact it would have on trade and stability. I'm no fan of Erdogan and his government but I am a fan of diplomacy and I would hope that Greece and Turkey can settle their long standing disputes with it. 

Donald Trump says Biden should not send cluster munitions to Ukraine as it risks World War III.

 

Donald Trump. The Hill/AP. 

Donald Trump has said that Joe Biden should not send cluster munitions to Ukraine as it risks World War III. The Hill. Citing the damage the munitions would due for year after the war, Trump said that Biden should focus on ending the war instead. Biden has received bipartisan criticism for his decision to send the munitions to Ukraine due to the fact that civilians are often maimed or killed years after dud munitions explode. Trump also criticized Biden for sending Ukraine our last stockpiles of 155mm ammunition, after Biden confirmed America was almost out of weapons. Trump also said that Biden was leading America into World War III which could end with "obliteration". 

Trump's full statement can be found here. 

My Comment:

I already covered Biden's gift of 155mm cluster munitions in a previous post. Since I have already spoken abut what I think about cluster munitions, I don't really need to repeat much here. In general the deployment of cluster munitions won't have much effect on the war but was an act of utter hypocrisy for the Biden Administration. 

Still, it is interesting to see criticism of Biden from both sides of the political spectrum for giving these weapons to Ukraine. The criticism of cluster munitions are valid enough and it makes sense that people that disagree about everything else would come together to criticize Biden over it. 

I do think that it confirms that despite all the anger and rage over the division between Republicans and Democrats there is another division between pro-war and anti-war camps. Donald Trump is pretty clearly in the anti-war camp and Biden is pro-war. The fact that the left has largely abandoned the anti-war ideals they so valued during the Iraq War is shocking. The people on the left that are criticizing Biden on the issue aren't doing so because he's escalating the war, it's just because the bombs might kill civilians at some point. 

The article did mention that Trump had the chance to ban cluster munitions but did not do so. I think that there is a difference between having the weapons in your inventory and actually using them. Keeping cluster munitions is a wise idea if a major war breaks out, and given the sorry state of our military it's very possible that we will have to have every possible advantage we can get. Still, I am sure politics has a lot to do with both the decision and his criticism of Biden.

Is Trump right that this could lead to World War III? Probably not. Sending cluster munitions is an escalation but Russia has been remarkably restrained when it comes to the war. Probably because they are pretty clearly winning. Ukraine has used cluster munitions throughout the war and it's not like their artillery units are very effective right now. I doubt that a few artillery shells are going to be the thing that pushes Russia into nuclear war. 

Still, I do think Trump is right that constantly pushing Russia is a good way to start World War III. Even if you support the war you have to admit that the war is not going well. Constantly escalating now is a high risk, low reward proposition. It's not wise to keep pushing Russia on this, eventually they will find a red line they actually care about crossing. 

Joe Biden reportedly has a volcanic temper and often swears at his aides.

 

Joe Biden. New York Post/Reuters. 

Joe Biden reportedly has a volcanic temper and often swears at his aides. New York Post. Biden often yells and swears at his aides to the point where many are afraid to meet with him alone. One senior aide even said that nobody was safe from Biden's tirades. One notable incident involved his former "Covid Czar" and current chief of staff Jeff Zients who had failed to secure testing kits when Omicron was spreading. The reaming that Zients got is still talked about among staffers today. Reports of Biden's temper are nothing new as there are reports of him ruling his staff with fear as far back as 2008. Biden's private behavior is at contrast with his public image and his promises to fire people who mistreated others during his administration. 

The original Axios report can be found here. 

My Comment:

This is one of those thing that is widely known but not something that has permeated to the general public. I personally always thought that Biden was, quite frankly, an asshole. I still remember the VP debate he had with Paul Ryan. Ryan, despite all his faults, was a better person during that debate but Biden was a jerk throughout the debate. 

A lot of people are saying that Biden's explosive temper is a sign of his falling into dementia. That is certainly possible, but like I said, Biden was known to be a jerk long before his mind started to fade. Without knowing exactly what goes on behind the scenes it's impossible to know if his actions now are worse than they are before. 

That being said, inappropriate anger is a sign of dementia. Given Biden's advanced age and his recent behavior there is already a strong circumstantial case that Biden is suffering from the disease. His anger could be another symptom of this but again, it could just be who he is as a person. 

Biden also seems to be the opposite of Donald Trump, who has a public image of being a very combative person but is known to be kind and attentive in his personal interactions with people (as long as they do what he wants). Biden has an image, at least in his supportive media, as an ice cream loving kindly old grandpa but is apparently an absolute jerk in person. 

Regardless, Biden's temper isn't too relevant in terms of how good of a president is. Unfortunately, Biden's a terrible president due to policy and effectiveness. Biden's screwed up just about everything he touches which is way more important than if he blows up on his staff. 

But I do think it's another example of how much of a hypocrite Biden is about things. Biden famously promised to fire people if they mistreated others on his staff and he has gone through with that threat at least once. But he's allowed to treat his staffers like crap and swear at them? Again, how he treats his staff isn't too relevant but this goes against what Biden is supposedly standing for.  

Finally, I have to say, unrelated to the story itself, is the fact that I hate the way Axios formats there articles. Instead of an actual narrative they just make everything a bunch of bullet points. I guess I'm not in position to criticize anyone about format but even still I don't like it. 

Biden says Ukraine "not ready" to join NATO...

 

Biden and Zelenskyy. Politico/AP.

Joe Biden has said that Ukraine is not ready to join NATO. Politico. Biden said there isn't unanimity in the alliance about bringing Ukraine in during the middle of a war with Russia. Biden also said that Ukraine had a lot of work to do to meet the qualifications for joining NATO. He did say that the United States would continue to supply Ukraine with weapons, days after saying he would send controversial cluster munitions to the country. 

My Comment:

This is another big sign that Ukraine is losing the war. If Ukraine was winning and winning greatly there wouldn't be much of a discussion of Ukraine joining NATO. Russia would be unable to respond because their hands would be full already. With Ukraine losing that means that Russia remains a threat to the rest of NATO, even beyond mutually assured destruction. 

It is also a bit of a sigh of relief for everyone worried about the war expanding beyond Ukraine. If Ukraine were to join NATO the alliance would be forced to join the war, which would lead to World War III and nuclear antihalation. Apparently the people handling Joe Biden finally figured out how insane that would be. 

Even if Ukraine joining NATO was a thing that was possible, it would be a bad idea just on grounds of Ukraine being a terrible country. Ukraine has suspended democracy, banned churches, discriminated against ethnic groups, employed a huge number of Nazis and committed war crimes. They have no business being in NATO as anything other than cannon fodder. 

Unfortunately, Biden has doubled down yet again in giving Ukraine even more weapons, including the cluster munitions. I do think it is funny that he is getting a significant amount of backlash from his own party for it, which is a first for the Ukraine conflict. The Democrats had no problem extending the war indefinitely, killing tens of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians but cluster munitions are somehow not ok?  

I do think that the war is becoming unsustainable. My guess is that the real reason we gave Ukraine cluster munitions is because we are out of basically everything else. We are nowhere near war production and Russia still has a massive artillery and manpower advantage. My guess is that the powers that be were told that Ukraine would collapse without new ammo and cluster munitions were all they had left short of nuclear or chemical weapons. 

Biden Administration expected to announce that they will be sending cluster munitions to Ukraine...

 

File photo of Rockeye II cluster bombs. ABC News/Reuters. 

The Biden administration is expected to announce that they will be sending controversial cluster munitions to Ukraine. ABC News. Cluster weapons are missiles, bombs or artillery shells that break up into smaller bomblets. They are controversial as they pose a major threat to civilians if they fail to explode. Cluster weapons are banned by 120 countries but not by the United States or either side of the Ukraine conflict as both Ukraine and Russia have used them. The cluster munitions expected to be sent to Ukraine are for 155mm artillery shells. 

My Comment:

This will probably cause some amount of distress among Biden's left wing supporters who have long argued that cluster munitions are a war crime. Many of these people think that using these weapons is a line the Biden administration should not cross. 

It is very true that cluster munitions do end up maiming and killing people long after the conflict is over. Children are especially vulnerable since they usually don't recognize the danger and at least some of the cluster munitions resemble toys. The use of these weapons will continue to kill Ukrainian and Russian civilians long after the war ends. 

With that being said, both sides of the Ukraine conflict are already using cluster munitions, or in the Ukrainian case, were using them. I am guessing they were begging for these weapons because they had long since ran out of their original stockpile. I did find it hilarious that the Defense Department spokesman quoted in the article said, without any evidence, that Russian ones are somehow more dangerous than ours. 

So I don't really find this deployment to be much worse than what we are already doing. A few more cluster munitions for a weapon system that the Ukrainians can barely use due to effective Russian counter battery fire isn't going to be a gamechanger, just like all the other wunderwaffe that we have sent to the conflict. Sure, a few more kids will get maimed years from now but that was probably going to happen anyways. 

I just find it funny that the party that supposedly cares about the danger of cluster munitions are going to be the ones responsible. Indeed, some members of congress, including Barbra Lee, are speaking out against this. I think there is a chance that that this could cause a mini civil war between the far left and the Democratic establishment. 

I am alarmed to hear @POTUS is considering sending cluster bombs to Ukraine.

Many people are unaware of these dangerous weapons. (🧵👇🏾) https://t.co/49rXLc0NeQ

— Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) July 6, 2023