US military bases in Europe put on alert for major terrorism threat.

 

File photo of Rammstein airbase in Germany. New York Post/Getty.

US military bases in Europe have been put on high alert for a major terrorism threat that could be targeting US troops. New York Post. The bases have been put on Force Protection Condition Charlie, the 2nd highest alert and one that hasn't been put into place in a decade. FPCON Charlie comes into effect when there is intelligence that an attack on a US bases or troops is likely. Bases in Germany, Italy, Bulgaria and Romania have all received the alert. Europe has received many threats from Islamic terrorists and there are concerns that both the European football championships and the Paris Olympics could come under attack. 

Air Force graphic explaining Force Protection Conditions. 

My Comment:

Well this is concerning. It's very clear that Islamic Terrorism is back and in a big way. Russia alone had three separate terror incidents, the Moscow mall attack, the prisoner uprising and the more recent terror attack in Dagestan. And that's just Russia. All of those attacks were fairly sophisticated and involved more than one person. Such a thing happening in the rest of Europe would not be a surprise. 

Indeed, it seems clear that the war in Ukraine has caused the intelligence communities in both the West and the East to focus almost entirely on the war. This has given both ISIS and al-Qaeda, which has also made some threats recently, to be able to regroup. So far ISIS has gotten more done compared to al-Qaeda but both groups are having a resurgence. 

Military bases are a more logical place for an attack than you would think. Most firearms are stored so there isn't really much of a chance of being stopped outside of the base guards. If you can get past them then you have a decent chance of inflicting heavy casualties. 

But is this threat real? I would say that the threat of a general terror attack in Europe is extremely high. Like I said, both al-Qaeda and ISIS are back and threatening attacks. But that doesn't mean that US bases are a huge target for them. Indeed, the article listed other events that would be even better targets, like the Olympics. There is value in military bases as well, but targeting the Olympics would be a coup for terrorists. 

There is also the fact that the United States isn't immune to terror attacks either. This particular threat is based in Europe but there is a major threat here at home as well. Our border is open so it would be trivial for ISIS or al-Qaeda to get terrorists into the country. And there is always the threat of lone wolf attackers as well. I think it's only a matter of time before we see another major terror attack here in the States as well. 

Joe Biden had a terrible debate, will he be replaced?

 

As you are probably aware, the 1st Presidential Debate happened last night and it did not go well for Joe Biden to say the least. Biden was barely coherent and mumbled and stumbled through the debate with a hoarse voice. And when he wasn't talking? He most stared off to space with his jaw slack and his face blank. Biden was showing every single one of his 81 years on planet earth.

The impact can't be understated. The CNN panel looked crestfallen and Van Jones was crying afterwards. Somehow it seems the media was high on their own supply when it comes to Biden, they really believed that recent videos of Biden looking ancient and senile where nothing but "cheap fakes" and doctored to make Biden look bad. Well, they found out that they were not in pretty spectacular fashion. 

Biden's performance was so bad that many in the Democrats camp are calling for Biden to step down and be replaced by another candidate. That's a historically bad debate to say the least. A large number of people believe that Biden is now incapable of winning and isn't even capable of taking care of himself. 

But is replacing Biden even feasible at this point? It's pretty unrealistic. Unless Biden dies then it's going to be incredibly hard to replace him. Biden is already on the ballot in Wisconsin and Nevada, two critical swing states, and can't be removed at this point. And if Biden were to step down it would be a nightmare to get Biden's funding transferred to another candidate. It's still possible but it would be an absolute mess. 

Of course any plan to replace Joe Biden would require Biden's cooperation. And I can't see them getting it. Biden's biggest sin is pride and he really does think that he's the only one that can beat Donald Trump. His wife, Jill Biden, is also extremely ambitious and won't give up power willingly. I also don't think they have much in the way of leverage, Biden has control of the delegates from the primaries and there isn't really a process in the Democratic Party to remove a candidate at this point without his permission. 

The other problem is even if they got Biden to step down, who is going to step up to replace him? I don't think there would be any agreement initially about who would replace Biden and it means that the Democratic Convention would be an absolute mess. And if it happened after the convention? I don't even think that can happen. 

None of the candidates are likely to be approved. A lot of people are floating Gavin Newsom's name, but he seems unlikely to accept. He went all in on Biden after the debate and I can't see him wanting to waste his chance in 2024 when he's a shoe in for 2028.

Of course there wouldn't be any agreement on Newsom. He only appeals to the pragmatist faction of the Democrats, which does not have full control of the part. The progressives would never approve of him, they would want someone like Bernie Sanders, or at least someone that hates Israel as much as they do. And the feminist faction? They would never accept Kamala Harris getting replaced by a white male. Maybe they would accept someone like Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton or Gretchen Whitmer, but they all have the same problem that Harris has, they can't win an election. 

So let's assume for the sake of argument that the issue of ballot access is moot and Biden is willing to step down. The party rallies around a new candidate to replace him and doesn't destroy itself in the process. The Democrats are still screwed because it's so late in the game. They would have little time to build up hype for a new candidate and promote them. They would be fighting from behind and would almost certainly lose to Trump. 

Regardless, it seems like the entire argument is a moot point. Biden has shown little interest in stepping down and is doing his best to try and recover from his disastrous debate. I think he's going to remain the candidate and that means the Democrats are almost certain to lose in 2024, possibly in a landslide. 

The only other thing I could think of that might save Democrats is almost too horrible to mention. If Joe Biden were to die, either through natural or other causes, many of the problems would disappear. This is a very scary situation as if Biden were to be taken out this way it could lead to civil war. But it seems like the only realistic way to get rid of him at this point and replace him with someone who isn't senile. 

If I were to give advice to the Democrats it would be to just take the L. The Democrats won't win in 2024 with Joe Biden so it's just better to accept that fact and try to stem the bleeding. Focus on the house and senate and try to keep as many seats as possible. Give up on the White House because it isn't happening this year and hope that any one of Biden's massive foreign policy or economic failures blow up during the Trump administration's 2nd term. 

Indeed, this seems to be the cope that the Biden campaign shills are going with. They keep trying to downplay the bad debate even after the media has turned on Biden. They are all in and won't be giving up anytime soon. I guess it's possible the powers that be will try and replace Biden, but I seem it's pretty unlikely at this point. 

50 illegal immigrants with ties to ISIS are loose in the United States...

 

Illegal immigrants at the border. Fox News.

50 illegal immigrants with ties to ISIS are loose in the United States. Fox News. 400 illegals have entered the United States via an ISIS affiliated human smuggling outfit that operates in Asia. 150 of those individuals have been deported, facing deportation or are being screened. It is unclear how many of the immigrants being sought have actual ties to ISIS or if they simply used the ISIS group to get into the country. The news comes after 8 illegals from Tajikistan were arrested due to ties with ISIS. The DHS does not believe that this is a terror operation, just ISIS looking for an income source, but the immigrants are a concern due to coming from countries with high numbers of terrorists. ISIS has become a major concern after major terror attacks in Russia committed by the group. 

My Comment:

Another consequence of our open border. These folks could be terrorists and if we don't do anything to stop them it's only a matter of time before a terror attack happens. We found out about these guys, but how many other people slipped through the cracks? 

Keep in mind that ISIS has used open borders to infiltrate terrorists into countries to launch attacks before. The most notable incident was, of course, the Paris attacks that left 131 people dead, but that's far from the only incident. If ISIS was going to launch an attack in the United States, this is how they would do it. 

Is that was it happening here? It's possible but it's also very possible that ISIS is just building a human trafficking network to build funds. Human smuggling is a hugely profitable business and there is a major demand for it. By getting into the business they could be building funds for other purposes, which of course could include terror attacks. 

Of course a human smuggling network has duel uses. It would make sense that ISIS would use it both as a money making venture and as a way to stage terror attacks outside of the local area. Indeed, it might even pay for itself given how profitable human smuggling is. 

The real questions now is if this network has been disrupted and where the 50 people that the government hasn't kept track of are and what they are up to. It's possible that these folks are just run of the mill illegal immigrants, people that should obviously be removed but don't pose much of a threat. And they could also be run of the mill criminals and murderers but not terrorists. Regardless, it would be a lot better if they had never been allowed to enter the country in the first place. 

I am expecting a major terror attack in the United States sooner or later. Our border has been open for awhile now and our military and intelligence services are totally distracted by the Ukraine debacle. The terrorists are also on a role with three very successful terror attacks recently, including the two in Russia and the Hamas attack on October 7th. Success breeds success and America remains a major target for these folks. The main question is if it will be from terrorists infiltrating the border or if they will be "lone wolf" homegrown terrorists acting alone... 

Jamaal Bowman, "squad" member and anti-Israel progressive Democrat, loses primary race.

 

File photo of Representative Jamaal Bowman. NBC/Getty.

Jamaal Bowman, "squad" member and anti-Israel progressive Democrat loses primary race. NBC News. The race was for New York's 16th district and Bowman lost the race to centrist Democrat George Latimer. The race drew an absurd amount of spending for a primary race with $25 million spent by both sides, $15 million of which came from a pro-Israel super PAC. Bowman is a member of the "squad" of congressional Democrats that are known for both being anti-Israel and extremely progressives. The other members of the squad have survived primary challenges, but Bowman did not. Latimer is expected to win the seat in 2024's November election as it is a deep blue area. 

My Comment:

The glaring omission in the NBC article is the fact that Bowman was the one that pulled the fire alarm back in September of last year and plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge because of it. Bowman claimed it was an accident but many believe that he was doing it to disrupt a vote on a funding bill. I personally think he did it on purpose. 

Was that why he lost? I doubt it. I don't think that most of his voters would have cared about that regardless. Despite the cynicism of the crime, nobody got hurt and I doubt many people cared enough to not vote for him for that reason. Plus it was old news by the time this primary cycle came up. I doubt many people were even thinking of it at this point. 

I am guessing what killed Bowman was his anger with Israel, which bordered on antisemitism. Not only did that turn off voters it caused a huge amount of money to poor in against him. Pro-Israel groups like APIAC spent $15 million to get rid of him and that's a money advantage that is hard to beat. I am guessing if October 7th had never happened or if he just kept his mouth shut he would not have been defeated. 

Does this have wider implications to the rest of the country? Are other far left progressive at risk? Probably not. I am guessing the situations in NY-16 are a bit different than the rest of the country. Bowman was scandal ridden and anti-Israel in New York, which has a large Jewish population. He was also one of the lesser known members of the squad and was not actually that popular. 

I do think that people are getting sick of the progressive narrative about Israel. I don't think being pro-Hamas is that popular outside of the far left and radical Muslim fringe. Many people are critical of Israel's conduct during the war but that doesn't extend to actually hating Jewish people, which I do think Bowman did. 

Regardless, I am not expecting George Latimer to be any better when he presumably wins the election this November. He will be better on Israel and won't be a far left progressive but I do expect him to go along with the majority of nonsense that the Democrats come up with. I am not expecting a Joe Machin or John Fetterman style of Blue Dog Democrat that is almost non-existent these days, I'm expecting a "centrist" Democrat that is nothing of the sort, and only better than Bowman in comparison. 

Finally I think this was a good night for primaries. Not only is Bowman gone, Lauren Boebert won her primary as well. Boebert is a pretty bog standard Republican that got attacked for being single and going on dates, so it's good justice that she won. She's not my favorite representative by a long shot but the attacks against her were ridiculous. And getting rid of Bowman is a good thing, he had no business being in congress in the first place. 

Julian Assange to be released after pleading guilty to espionage

 

File photo of Julian Assange. Fox News/Getty.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange will be released after pleading guilty to espionage. Fox News. Assange spent the last five years in a British prison fighting extradition. Assange was charged with conspiring with Bradly Manning (now known as Chelsea) to release secret military and diplomatic information. Assange was charged in the case despite being a journalist. Assange will be sentenced to 62 months in prison, and the time he spent imprisoned in the UK will count as time served and his sentence will already be completed when entered. Assange will return to his homeland, Australia. The end to the multi year drama has been praised by groups as disparate as the ACLU, the Australian government and many prominent Republicans. 

My Comment:

This isn't the perfect outcome in this case as Assange never should have been charged in the first place. Bradly Manning? Sure, he took an oath to the government and betrayed it. But Assange was not only a journalist doing his job, he was also not an American citizen and could not betray the US government because he never took and oath to it in the first place. 

Indeed, the charges almost certainly are because he got blamed for Hillary Clinton losing in 2016. The powers that be never forgave him for publishing embarrassing things from the DNC and Hillary's campaign manager, John Podesta. Those releases showed America the dark side of both the Democrats and it could be argued that it cost Clinton the election. By their thought she wasn't supposed to lose so it irked them to no end that Assange published it. 

They never stopped trying to destroy Assange after that. He was charged with rape in Sweden and was called a Russian stooge, despite posting information embarrassing to Russia as well. The charges were just the cumulation of an attempt to destroy Assange. 

The sad thing is that it mostly worked. Wikileaks has never been the same since Assange was charged and is a spent force at best. We did not get any of the leaks we saw in 2016 during the 2020 election cycle and the election was worse off because of it. And I doubt that Assange will go back to his work after this five year ordeal. From what I understand his health isn't the best and I am sure he wants to spend time with his kids. 

Could Wikileaks make a comeback? I doubt it. I don't know if Assange is up to it and I am guessing that even if he was people would be too afraid to send him anything juicy. His prosecution will have a chilling effect even beyond what it already had. I don't think it's a coincidence that most news outlets refused to publish the Hunter Biden laptop story  in 2020. Part of it was the fact that the media was mostly all-in on Biden, but I am guessing at least part of it was due journalists being afraid that they would get the Assange treatment... 

Terror attack in Russia leaves Orthodox priest and at least 15 police dead.

 

Clip from a video showing the attack. Reuters. 

A terror attack in Russia's Dagestan region left an Orthodox priest and at least 15 police officers dead. Reuters. It is unclear how many casualties occurred with more deaths outside of the priest suspected. The attacks occurred simultaneously in the cities of Makhachkala and Derbent. Two attackers set a synagogue and church on fire in Derbent before being killed by police. A second synagogue was burnt in Makhachkala. At least six gunmen were killed by police. Dagestan was a center of terrorism but the Islamic insurgency was declared defeated in 2017. However, there have been several attacks either planned or executed from the region since then. Two of the attackers were the sons of the head of the Sergokala district in Dagestan. 

My Comment:

This is breaking news story and as always, the casualty numbers are not final and will likely increase. I think that is almost certain given the number of attackers and the one confirmed civilian casualty. It's also not even clear how many terrorists were involved in the attack, with some sources saying five, some saying six while other saying that some are still on the loose. 

It's unclear who is responsible for the attack, but given that two of the attackers were locals, I am guessing it wasn't Ukraine. The attackers are pretty clearly Muslims and that would lead me to believe that it's either ISIS or another Islamic terror group. Given that they targeted Jews and Christians as well is pretty good evidence that this is Islamic terrorism. 

Coordinated terror attacks in Russia (Dagestan) - a synagogue is set on fire, police killed, and a priest allegedly beheaded as Islamic terrorists screaming “Allahu Akbar” cause havoc in Derbent and Makhachkala.

This is the same region the Boston Marathon suicide bomber brothers… pic.twitter.com/sUKcfdSuSk

— StopAntisemitism (@StopAntisemites) June 23, 2024

Islamic terrorism is making a comeback in Russia. In addition to this attack, there was the major terror attack in Moscow that left more than 100 dead. It's also important to note that this was the same region where a passenger jet was attacked because of the presence of Jews on the flight. Dagestan is also where the Boston Marathon attackers were from.  It's not at all surprising that a major terror attack happened there. 

It's also not a surprised that they martyred a priest and fired a church and two synagogues. This would absolutely not be the first time that Islamic terrorists have done either. From what it sounds like the Orthodox priest was a good person so it's yet another example of Islamic terrorism killing the innocent. 

Archpriest Nikolai (Kotelnikov) was killed in Derbent during an attack on Orthodox Church.

The priest served in Derbent for more than 40 years. He taught at a local Sunday school. Father Nikolai moved to Dagestan from Stavropol. He is survived by his wife, three daughters and 6… pic.twitter.com/vT2ucTvBoi

— Olia (@OliaOnX) June 23, 2024

I also don't think this is really blowback from the Gaza war. If anything it was probably inspired by either the October 7th attack or the Moscow attack. Both of those attacks were the most successful terror attacks in years and success breeds imitation. However, it seems very likely given the number of attackers, at least five, that this was an "official" terror attack by a major terror organization. 

If it does turn out to be ISIS that is a bad sign. ISIS was defeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya but it never was completely destroyed in Afghanistan and they may have been able to regroup and recover. Given the increased pace of attacks it seems very likely. If it isn't ISIS though? Then there is probably a new terror group operating in Russia.   

After signing defense pact, Russia may send weapons to North Korea.

 

Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un in North Korea. Reuters.

After signing a defense pact Russia may send weapons to North Korea. Reuters. Vladimir Putin mentioned that he might send weapons to North Korea in a tit-for-tat move to counter America giving weapons to Ukraine. North Korea is already providing artillery shells and small arms to Russia and it would make sense for North Korea to get weapons in return. North Korea wants advanced fighter jets, tanks, anti-aircraft systems and ballistic missiles for their nuclear program. The weapons would help North Korea catch up with South Korea, which currently had a military advantage in terms of technology. The defense pact signed between Russia and North Korea is not an official alliance but both sides have vowed to defend each other in the event of an attack.

My Comment:

Putin has been threatening a tit-for-tat move ever since Biden announced that Ukraine could launch attacks into Russia with US weapons, a threat they have now expanded to any region Russia is attacking from. I had speculated that Putin might give the Houthis, which are causing so much trouble for the US Navy in the Red sea, these weapons but it seems as though North Korea is going to get weapons instead or as well. 

North Korea has a manpower advantage over South Korea but in terms of technology the South has a massive advantage. Outside of a few 4th generation MIG-29's North Korea's air force is hopelessly outdated. They also have a major disadvantage in missiles and drones, which Russia can now fix. They do have a major advantage in artillery, which is why they can give so many shells to Russia, but that and manpower are their only advantage to the North. 

But it's not South Korea that the United States is concerned about. It's the fact that Russia could easily give North Korea missiles that could hit the United States with nuclear weapons. They can either give those weapons directly to North Korea or help their scientists to do it themselves. That would be a game changer and would make any war between the United States and North Korea a lot less one sided  affair, especially if Russia is serious about defending North Korea. 

This is, of course, a result of Joe Biden's foreign policy. Under Trump, relations between the United States and North Korea, and North Korea and South Korea, were a lot better. But now North Korea is in the sphere of influence of Russia and it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get them back out. Had Biden continued Trump's efforts to normalize relations with North Korea things might be different. And if he hadn't played his role in the Ukraine war things absolutely would be different. 

Is a war between North Korea and South Korea happening? Possibly. If either Ukraine or Taiwan escalate to World War III, I would not be surprised if North Korea joins to add another front for the United States to deal with. But I don't see them doing so any time soon. 

Another thing to consider is that it will take a long time to modernize North Korea's military even with Russia's help, which isn't even 100% guaranteed. There is still a chance that Russia only gives token support and not all the weapons North Korea wants and needs. But even if North Korea gets everything they want it will take a very long time for them to receive and train with those weapons. 

US Navy is stuck in the Red Sea battling the Houthis. Is it sustainable?

 

The Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier group, along with an Italian ship. Business Insider/US Navy.

The US Navy is stuck in the Red Sea in a high intensity battle with the Houthis of Yemen. Business Insider. The Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier group has fired over 500 munitions and logged tens of thousands of hours for their airplanes. The munitions alone have cost $1 billion, but the actual costs are a lot higher. The rate of fire for munitions is sustainable but the wear and tear on ships and sailors may not be. The carrier group is in its second extension and has been active since the war with the Houthis began. The mission has been a mixed bag. No US Navy ships have been hit but several civilian ships have been hit with drones and missiles and a few have been sunk. There is also no end in sight for the operation as the Houthis have vowed to continue attacks until the war in Gaza ends. 

My Comment:

Currently the US Navy has a carrier, a cruiser and two destroyers deployed to the Red Sea and they have been deployed there since the mission began. The attacks have been constant since them and though they have had a little help from other coalition members, they have been in heavy combat since. 

The only good news is that these ships have not been hit despite having come under attack frequently. The Houthis have certainly tried but so far the air defenses of these vessels have been effective. That should continue unless the Houthis get really lucky or the Navy gets overwhelmed. 

The problem is that the mission to actually protect shipping in the Red Sea isn't working. The Houthis are still able to hit ships at will and have sunk some as well. Indeed, the 2nd ship sunk was hit this week, with one civilian sailor missing and presumed dead. Airstrikes have not been able to stop the missile and drone strikes, which now include sea drones, and I don't see how this could change. 

I think the main problem is that there aren't nearly enough ships to cover all of both the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Even if there was a 2nd carrier group in the area I don't think it would be enough ships to cover and intercept all of the weapons being launched, even if you include more ships from friendly nations. Our destroyers and cruisers are extremely powerful but there's only three of them deployed and that's just not enough. 

I do think that this kind of operational tempo is not sustainable. The Pentagon is saying they can sustain the use of weapons, but what about the crews and ships? Burnout is a thing and constant combat is eventually going to lead to both human mistakes and equipment failures. At some point these vessels are going to need an extended break to rest, rearm and repair, but I haven't heard of any replacements being authorized.  

Things could get significantly worse given that Russia has said they could give weapons to US enemies. The Houthis are getting mostly Iranian tech now, which is not terrible, but not at the same level as the Russians. If Russia does give the Houthis advanced weapons not only could down our airplanes but threaten our ships as well. That might not happen anytime soon, but it is a real threat. 

Either way, we should be questioning if this operation is even worth it at this point. Keeping the sea routes open is important but we aren't even accomplishing that. It also seems as though we are half-assing it, with not enough resources. Regardless, I do think it's time that the Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier group is replaced in the Red Sea with fresh ships and sailors. 

Vladimir Putin meets with Kim Jong Un as ties between Russia and North Korea grow stronger.

 

Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin. AP.

Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un meet as ties between Russia and North Korea grow stronger. AP. Putin visited North Korea for the first time in 24 years. The two leaders vowed support for each other against US Sanctions and vowed to start a multipolar world. Russia has been receiving arms from North Korea for use in Ukraine in exchange for economic and nuclear weapon help. Putin also said that they would have better relations on tourism, culture and education. The meeting comes as tensions on the Korean peninsula are high. Just today South Korea opened fire on North Korean troops that crossed into the DMZ, presumably by accident. 

My Comment:

It seems clear that the window that Donald Trump opened towards normalizing relations with North Korea and ending the war in Korea has been closed, perhaps for good. North Korea is now firmly in the sphere of Russia's influence and it won't be leaving anytime soon. 

Both sides are obviously getting something they need out of this. Though Russia's arms production is stronger than the west, they still need additional capacity and North Korea is another obvious source of weapons for them. The North Koreans are getting much needed money and prestige from their relationship with Russia and are getting a boost to their nuclear weapons program. It's a win-win relationship for both of them. 

I also don't think the DMZ incident is unrelated. North Korea has been harassing the South for awhile now, with them dropping garbage onto the south and now crossing the border again. I don't think these incidents are preparation for war, but are there to cause one more headache for North Korea and Russia's mutual enemy, the Biden administration. It's just another tire fire that Biden will have to deal with in addition to Ukraine, and there is little evidence he will be able handle it. 

Russia's investment in North Korea might reverse some of the major problems they have had. Keep in mind that whenever the weather gets bad, people starve in North Korea. With Russian help they might be able to avoid that and could turn their economy around as well. Given the demand for weapons Russia has right now, they should be making a mint. 

I do wonder if this new link to Russia could change North Korea for the better. North Korea is one of the most oppressive countries in the world and Russia is a paradise in comparison. It's very possible that Russians in the country could have a liberalizing effect on the North Korean people and could even improve conditions. That could be wishful thinking on my part though. 

It's also possible that North Korea's infamous isolationist attitude could destroy their relations with Russia as well. If Russia does have a liberalizing influence in North Korea the Kim family could see that as a threat and could clamp down and kick Russia back out. But if that happens it probably won't be anytime soon, in the short time this is a big win for both countries. 

It's also a big embarrassment for the Biden administration's foreign policy. Their policy of sanctions over diplomacy is backfiring yet again. It has made a pretty strong de facto anti-western alliance with Russia, China, North Korea and Iran all working together and slowly pulling off chunks of the third world. It seems pretty clear that Putin's ideas about a multipolar world could very well come to pass. 

Donald Trump says he would cut off aid for Ukraine

 

Donald Trump. Politico/Getty.

Donald Trump says that he would cut off aid for Ukraine. Politico. Trump made the comments over the weekend and said that he would have the issue settled. Trump was critical of Ukrainian President Zelensky, calling him the "greatest salesman of all time". Trump also said “He just left four days ago with $60 billion, and he gets home, and he announces that he needs another $60 billion. It never ends,” The Biden administration and Europe have tried to future-proof Ukraine aid in the event of a Trump presidency. The same day Trump made the comments, Kamala Harris announced another $1.5 billion in aid.

My Comment:

Donald Trump is saying all the right things here. I have never supported supporting Ukraine, even before the invasion from Russia. Indeed, one of the main criticisms for Trump that I had is that he gave any support to Ukraine at all. In a perfect world we would be allied with Russia and give them a free hand in Ukraine in exchange for help against China, but that ship has sailed... 

Biden on the other hand is continuing to send billions of dollars in aid and weapons and has almost nothing to show for it. Ukraine is losing the war and the best the aid can do is continue to drag things out. Instead of cutting off Ukraine, Biden is continuing to double down. 

Indeed, the entire thing is deeply cynical. I doubt even the true believers in the Pentagon and State Department believe that Ukraine can even get a favorable peace settlement now, let alone take back all the territory they have lost, including Crimea. They know Ukraine can't win but they are continuing to fund the war. 

Why? Because they don't want to take responsibility for the failure and want to delay the consequences until after the 2024 election. In their eyes it's win-win, if Trump wins then they can blame him for the failure. And if Biden wins, they can bank on people forgetting on an Ukraine debacle much like many people have forgotten about how Biden lost Afghanistan. 

I guess it is possible that the powers that be honestly believe they can still win the war. I have no idea what is going on behind closed doors in the White House and Pentagon, but if that's the case we could be in massive trouble. It is dangerous to have leadership this completely deluded. 

As for Trump, I do think he will be able to cut off aid from Ukraine. He might not be able to stop all aid that has already been allocated but the Presidency does have power over how money is spent. And he could use national security as a justification for doing so. Congress might have a problem with it though, so he might be forced to make some kind of deal to do so. 

It might depend on how things are going in the war. Russia is in no hurry to take territory back from Ukraine and mostly content in just destroying Ukrainian troops and infrastructure. Their attack near Kharkov has largely fizzled out, mostly because they didn't send all that many troops. There is still plenty of time for an actual major offensive over the summer, but Russia might be content to continue to keep up what they are doing with massive airstrikes and minor territorial gains. On the other hand, Ukraine probably won't be able to continue to fight for much longer given the almost total destruction of Ukraine's power generation. 

I do think that Trump can end the war in Ukraine. As it is both sides are putting out feelers but neither side is serious. But Trump can force new elections in Ukraine and after that a real peace deal could be made. I think Russia will probably get most of what they want. But the real problem is that Trump is term limited after a 2nd term and Russia would not be able to trust any deal he makes. I am still guessing the actual end of the war will require the collapse of the Ukraine government. 

Russia kills ISIS members who took hostages in a prison.

 

Police and National Guard at the scene of the incident. BBC/Rex/Shutterstock.

Russia has killed six ISIS terrorists who had taken guards as hostages in a prison in Rostov-on-Don. BBC.  The terrorists were held in a pretrial detention center awaiting trial for terrorism charges and for being members of ISIS. They managed to smuggle in phones, knives and ISIS flags into prison and were able to break out of their cell. They took several guards hostage and were said to have "serious intentions". They demanded a vehicle, weapons and freedom. However, Russia responded with a raid that killed all six of the hostage takers and successfully saved the lives of the hostages with no injuries reported. 

My Comment:

This goes to show that ISIS terrorists remain a threat even if they have been detained and imprisoned. This incident could have gone a lot worse and it's a minor miracle that nobody outside of the terrorists were killed or injured. Good on the Russians for taking these guys out in a successful raid. 

It is embarrassing that the Russians allowed the ISIS attackers to get weapons and phones in their prison. To be fair, our own prisons have the same issues, but American prisoners have more rights than Russians and you would think that they would have better security than this. Especially with ISIS fighters, you would think that they would be under a lot more security than the average prisoner. 

ISIS has a history of breaking out of prisons. If memory serves there as a massive post-war escape in Syria that freed hundreds of fighters. In this case it didn't work but it should not have come as a surprise that these ISIS fighters tried to do this. It's almost to be expected at this point.

Russia has a long history of dealing with ISIS, indeed, the most recent major ISIS attack was the Moscow theater attack that left 145 people dead. That's far from the only attack, ISIS has killed hundreds of Russians and given Russia's major Muslim population, I think they will continue to have major problems with them, even though their main focus remains Ukraine. 

As for ISIS this just goes to show that defeating them on the battlefield has not ended the threat. These folks were in prison and were still a threat and there are thousands of ISIS fighters and sympathizers still out there. They will remain a threat for years to come, regardless what happens to the core ISIS organization. 

I also expect another major terror attack, either from ISIS or another Islamic terror group, to happen in the United States soon. Not only has core ISIS started to regroup after their defeats in Syria and Iraq, Islamic terrorists will draw inspiration and outrage from the war in Gaza. I think it's only a matter of time before they pull something off, either directly or due to inspiring a "lone wolf" attacker... 

SCOTUS overturns bump stock ban in a major victory for gun rights.

 

A bump stock. Politico/AP.

The Supreme Court has overturned the ban on bump stocks in a major victory for gun rights. Politico. In a 6-3 decision, the Court said that the ban, put in place by the Trump administration after the Las Vegas mass shooting, went far beyond the law. Bump stocks were argued to turn regular rifles into full auto firearms but the court pointed out that the stocks did nothing that a normal person with a quick finger could do, they do not actually increase the fire rate of the weapon. Justice Samuel Alito also slammed the executive branch for trying to do an end-run around the legislative branch. The Court's three liberal justices disagreed. 

My Comment:

For those of you that say I never criticize Donald Trump, well, the bump stock ban was one of the dumbest and worst things he ever did and I am very glad that this got turned over. It was never a serious argument that a bump stock actually turns a rifle into a machine gun. Indeed, you can get the same result with a piece of string or, as Benicio del Toro demonstrated in Sicaro 2, with a finger. 

The scene above also demonstrates why it's so dumb to ban these devices. Bump firing doesn't turn a weapon into a machine gun, it just makes it inaccurate and is little more than a range trick. No serious shooter would use a bump stock in a real combat situation as it only simulates full auto fire and doesn't even do a good job at it. Since full auto is mostly useless unless used as suppressive fire, there's very little reason for anyone to ever use it unless they are having fun at a gun range. Del Toro's character in the movie did it because it was a flashy gun trick that made his assassination look cool and memorable, not because it was effective. He only used it when he was executing an already wounded and defenseless man and he only did it that way because he wanted to make the news. 

Yes, Stephan Paddock used bump stocks during the Las Vegas shooting, but that's the exception that proves the rule. Paddock was a near-genius who did something nobody had done before or since with those rifles and even then he had to have near perfect conditions, an elevated perch, little interference from law enforcement and a literal pile of rifles to accomplish what he accomplished. For a normal person adding a bump stock actually makes the weapon less effective since you won't be taking aimed shots with the weapon and risk burning up the rifle from firing it too fast, which is what Paddock did. In his case it didn't matter because he had piles of AR's but for most people that's never going to be an option. 

Even if you disagree and think that bump stocks can be banned, it's clear that Alito was right and the ATF and White House could not legally do it the way they wanted. Nothing in the NFA said that a gun is a machine gun if it does something similar to full auto if you use motivated reasoning and squint a little. A machine gun as a solid definition and if the government wants to change that so it covers bump stocks they have to do it the right way, through congress, not arbitrarily and against the law. 

Will bump stocks remain legal? I am not sure. The Court certainly left the door open for Congress to ban bump stocks as long as they go that route and not through the executive. The real question is if Congress even wants too, Republicans are treating this as a win and even Trump is saying we should respect the Court's ruling here so I doubt there is much motivation to do so. As long as the GOP controls the House, I can't see a bump stock ban passing. 

Plus there is no urgency to the issue, like I said, Paddock's Las Vegas shooting was about the only time bump stocks were used in a mass shooting. Glock switches? Sure, but those probably actually do count as machine guns. Bump stocks are different and are rare enough that I can't see people actually using them for crime, especially with all the downsides I listed above. Indeed, it might be a good thing if they do as it would make it easier to escape from their inaccurate fire! 

As for me, I still think that bump stocks and bump firing in general, is a pretty dumb thing. Accurate fire is always more important than rate of fire. Plus it's a waste of expensive ammo and could even damage your firearm if you use it at a gun range. I don't support a ban as I don't really support any gun regulations, but a bump stock isn't something that I am ever going to purchase for myself. 

Houthi missile attack from Yemen severely injures civilian sailor.

 

Houthis in Yemen. BBC/Reuters.

A Houthi missile attack from Yemen has severely injured a civilian sailor. BBC. The Houthis hit the MV Verbena, a Palauan flagged and Ukrainian owned cargo ship, with two cruise missiles in the Gulf of Aden. It comes one day after another successful hit against a Greek owned cargo ship in the Red Sea, causing severe flooding. The Houthis have been attacking shipping in both the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden ever since the war in Gaza broke out. A US lead coalition against the Houthis have not stopped the attacks. The area is one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. 

My Comment:

A fairly grim reminder that the shipping war in Yemen is continuing. So far the war has mostly been casualty free but in this case someone got hurt. Though it seems like the attacks have tapered off they have not stopped and eventually the Houthis are going to actually going to cause a mass-casualty event. 

I do think it's safe to say that the US led attacks on Houthi targets accomplished very little. The attacks have continued. They have slowed but that is probably due to the Houthis blowing through their weapons, not because the strikes did much of anything. I am guessing that Iran sent them a new shipment of weapons and that's why things are picking up again. 

I don't see these attacks ending anytime soon. As long as Yemen is getting weapons they will continue to use them. Their end-goal is to end the war in Gaza and that doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon. And even if it does end, why would they stop? Their attacks haven't been super successful but it has forced most shipping out of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, forcing it to go around the Cape of Good Hope in Africa, dramatically increasing shipping costs and travel time. In short, the Houthis are winning and are getting prestige for standing up to the west. 

Awhile back I wrote about how Russia said they could start sending weapons to America's enemies. In that post I said that the Houthis in Yemen would be a perfect place to do so as the weapons could be put to good use. The Houthis have been limited by the effectiveness of Iran's weapons. Though Iran's missiles and drones are decently effective, Russia's are even better and it's very possible that Russia will give more advanced weapons to them. Russian cruise missiles have more power and greater range than Iranian ones and Russian air defenses are peerless. It remains to be seen if they will give the Houthis any weapons though. 

I do think that this is another example of Biden' foreign policy being terrible. The Houthi situation was mostly resolved and there were not attacks on shipping. Biden's strikes against the Houthis did nothing and I don't even know if he is still aware that these attacks are happening, given how little attention he is giving them. I don't really know how we end the shipping war but I do know that Biden is not the right man to do so... 

Congressional baseball game disrupted by climate change and pro-Hamas protesters.

 

The congressional baseball game. Fox News.

The congressional baseball game was disrupted by climate change and pro-Hamas protesters. Fox News. The baseball game, which involved members of the Senate and House from both parties, is a bipartisan charity event. A group of eight climate change protesters stormed the field before being arrested and removed by capitol police. A group called "Climate Defense" took credit for the disruption. Separately, pro-Hamas protesters unveiled a banner in the stands that said "free Palestine". Both groups were booed loudly by the crowd. The protests were especially tasteless given the 2017 shooting targeting conservative politicians that left six people injured and the attacker dead.

Protestor storms onto the field at the Congressional Baseball game, gets tackled, and the crowd starts chanting USA pic.twitter.com/sRvBpm1zXf

— Jon Michael Raasch (@JMRaasch) June 12, 2024

My Comment:

Though certainly a minor story in the grand scheme of things, I am utterly disgusted by this protest. The biggest reason is that the congressional baseball game was the victim of a politically motivated terror attack committed by a deranged leftist. The last thing we need at this charity event is more deranged leftists trying to disrupt it. Had the incident occurred at another event, it would have been annoying, but doing at this event? Totally tasteless. 

It's also one of the few things left in this country that is bipartisan. Though I am no fan of Democrats it is good if they can at least have a friendly baseball game together without something horrible happening. That kind of bipartisanship is rare today and it's disgusting that people are trying to ruin it. 

I am somewhat less disgusted by the pro-Hamas protesters than the climate ones. At least they stayed in the stands and didn't actually disrupt the game. It was still a terrible thing to do, especially for a cause that has zero redeeming qualities, but compared to the idiots running onto the field and disrupting the game they are much worse. 

As for the climate protesters, I really can't understand them. Nothing they have done will make the climate any better. Indeed, if helping the climate is their goal, why are they acting like this? Do they really think that disrupting charity events, blocking highways and attacking artwork is the way to convince people to go along with them?

It seems pretty clear from the video that it's having the opposite effect. I'm not exactly sure who goes to the congressional baseball game, but it's clear that they weren't having these protesters. I am guessing that many of the people that were inclined to agree with one or both groups of protesters were disgusted by their behavior and joined the boos and USA chants. Who would have thought that being as annoying as humanly possible isn't an effective way to get people on your side? 

Hunter Biden convicted on federal firearms charges.

 

Hunter Biden departing from Federal Court. Yahoo News/AP.

Hunter Biden has been convicted on federal firearms charges. Yahoo News. Joe Biden's son was charged with three federal firearms charges including one count of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, one count of lying on a background check form and possession of an illegally obtained firearm. He was convicted on all three counts after a short jury deliberation. The charges could lead to 25 years in prison and a fine of $750,000, though as a first time offender it would be extremely unlikely that Hunter Biden would serve the complete sentence, or possibly any prison time at all. Hunter Biden purchased a revolver at a time when he was addicted to crack cocaine. Biden had made a "sweetheart deal" to avoid the gun charges but the plea was rejected by the judge. Joe Biden said he supported his son and also wouldn't pardon him. 

My Comment:

I've got pretty mixed feelings about this case. I do think that it was incredibly obvious that Hunter Biden obviously broke the laws he was charged with. There was no question that Biden lied about being on drugs when he purchased his handgun. Both his book and the various leaks from the "laptop from hell" clearly showed him using crack cocaine around the time he purchased the gun. It was an open and shut case. 

The biggest problem is that the law itself is unconstitutional. Indeed, cases are working their way through the court that could get form ATF 4473 either removed entirely or revised to remove the part about being a drug addict. I personally think that drug addicts still have gun rights and that even Hunter Biden has rights to keep and bear arms. 

I also hate the political implications of this case. The left is already trying to paint this case as justifying the persecution of Donald Trump. They are trying to claim that because Hunter Biden got convicted it proves that the Trump trial was fair. Indeed, that's probably why the case was brought in the first place. 

Does it hurt Joe Biden? Probably not, just like the Trump trial didn't really hurt Trump. Hunter Biden being a drug addict was common knowledge at this point and it's already baked in. Partisans aren't going to care either way and the people in the middle aren't going to care too much that Biden's son is a scumbag. Everyone already knows and Biden being convicted won't change much. The only good thing for Biden is that the political corruption revealed in Hunter Biden's "laptop from hell" won't be litigated. 

I doubt that Hunter Biden actually goes to prison. He's a first time offender and there is no minimum sentence for the crimes he committed and as a non-violent and politically connected person I'd be shocked if he serves any time in prison at all. I'm guessing he gets a fine and some form of Federal probation, not prison time. 

I also have to point out that the charges that Biden was convicted on are only rarely filed, and usually only when they want to throw the book at someone. Lying on ATF form 4473 is pretty common and very few people are actually charged with it. Had Hunter Biden not been so blatant with his drug use and if there hadn't been a political outcry about his drug use I doubt he would have been charged with this crime either. 

Still, it is good to see some punishment for someone like Hunter Biden. He got away with a lot because of who his father is and it is good to see someone from the Biden family actually get punished for something, even if it is for a crime I consider to be a joke. Biden's behavior was beyond the pale and he deserved to face at least some consequences. 

As for Joe Biden, I do wonder if he will end up pardoning Hunter. I am guessing it depends on what happens at the sentencing. If the judge threw the book at Hunter Biden and gave him the maximum sentence or close to it, something I seriously doubt happening, I could see it. But since I doubt Hunter Biden is going to serve even a day in prison I am guessing it won't happen. Hunter Biden's tax case is another matter though... 

Donald Trump floats getting rid of taxes on tips for service workers in Nevada.

 

Donald Trump at the rally in Nevada. CBS News.

Donald Trump floats getting rid of taxes on tips for service workers at a rally in Las Vegas Nevada. CBS News. Trump said it would be one of the first things he would do when he got into office. It's the first time that Trump has floated the idea and would help service workers who are paid below minimum wage because they make up for it in tips. The IRS taxes tips as regular income. The proposal would have to be taken up by congress, which could be taken up in 2025, when the Trump led tax cuts are set to expire. The pitch was a calculated one in Nevada, which has huge population of service workers who have suffered since the pandemic. Trump currently leads Biden in Nevada, which has been a blue state since 2004.

My Comment:

The elephant in the room is that this income used to be de facto tax free. In the past when everyone paid in cash, service workers could pocket these tips and not report them as income. Indeed, some people still tip like this specifically so service workers can do this. However, with the change from cash to credit and debit cards and other non-cash methods of payment, this has stopped as those tips are reported to the IRS. That means that the effective tax rate for service workers has gone up dramatically.

Of course there is an argument that service workers should have always reported this income and the new method of tipping is a way to make up for the fact that these folks weren't paying their fair share in taxes. There is some merit for these claims, the cash tipping loophole is one that probably should have been fixed. And there are some workers that get cash tips regardless, with hotel workers in Vegas being a pretty obvious example. 

Regardless of the morality of not paying taxes on tips under the old system, this is a very smart pitch by the Trump campaign. Doing so would help service workers keep more of the money they earn while working and likely earn Trump a lot of votes. There are a huge number of people from the service industry that would love to see their tax rate going down. 

Can Trump pull it off? I don't know. I'm not sure how the GOP congress critters would react to this. I am guessing the fiscal responsibility wing of the party would be mad about the loss of tax revenue. I'd argue that having these people having more of their tax dollars to spend would help the economy enough that it could make up for it, but who knows if that would be a persuasive argument for them. And the Republican Party are experts at shooting themselves in the foot and might be willing to give up on millions of service workers on principal alone. 

I do think that this will probably play well in Nevada and Las Vegas specifically. Nevada is more reliant on tourism and service industries than most states and they would greatly apricate the tax break. The state is trending red regardless and I think there is a very good chance that it's a GOP pick up in 2024, even without this announcement. 

I am sure that Democrats will claim that Trump is attempting to buy votes and it's not totally insane. But I will say that it's a lot less cynical than what Biden did with his student loan forgiveness. At least these folks earn the money they get from tips, unlike the people who got their debt canceled. And it will be helping people in the lower and working classes, not the upper class folks with fancy college degrees. 

EU elections show a major swing to the right wing.

 

National Rally supporters in France celebrating their win. AP.

European Union elections show a major swing to the right wing. AP. Right wing parties won across the board with both the center and far right gaining a large number of seats. Christian Democrats, right wing centrists, will be in control of the EU parliament. So called far-right parties including Alternative for Germany and National Rally in France had major victories with AFD beating Germany's ruling Social Democrats and French President Emmanuel Macron dissolving France's national parliament and is calling for new elections. The far right gained their seats mostly from the far left Green party and Macron's center left Renew party. The election continues a trend towards right wing governments with Italy, Hungry and Slovakia being ruled outright by right wing parties while Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands having right wing parties in the ruling coalition. 

My Comment:

Not mentioned in the AP report is that the election results have resulted in the resignation of Alexander De Croo, the left wing Prime Minster of Belgium. And with France having new elections it's very possible that two governments will fall because of these elections. 

Of course it's important to note that the far-right does not have control of the EU parliament. Indeed, centrist parties, outside of France's Renew party did fine. It's going to be the center-right, not the far right, that will be in control of the EU parliament. 

That isn't the say that the far right doesn't have any power at all. They are a major voting block now and the center right will probably have to cater to them on some issues. They will probably be able to block some legislation and will have to be consulted on other legislations. 

The biggest loser though is the far left Green parties, the folks that Greta Thunberg supports. They largely got replaced by the right and they are not anywhere near the power they once were. They are not going to have much power at all in the future EU parliament. 

So why did this happen? I think there is a major right wing shift happening across the world, with the UK being the major exception due to the Tories being incredibly incompetent. It's clear to most people that the far left is mostly nonsense at this point and everyone is reacting against them.

But I think, much like the United States, immigration was the issue that decided this election. People are sick and tired of immigrants getting a better deal than the native born citizens. And it's almost impossible to argue that these immigrants from the third world are actually improving things. The huge spike in crime and poverty throughout the western world proves that to be true. 

Will the elections change anything long term though? It really depends. The center right might end up betraying the far right again, like they always do. But it does seem that at least a few governments will be shaken up and France's Macron will be a lame duck president for the rest of his term until 2027. I guess I would say that I am cautiously optimistic. Time will tell how it all turns out. 

Vladimir Putin suggests Russia will give weapons to America's enemies in response to Biden allowing Ukraine to use US weapons to strike Russia.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin. AP.

Russian President Vladimir Putin suggests Russia will give weapons to US enemies in response to Biden allowing Ukraine to use US weapons to strike Russia. AP. Putin made the comments to a press conference to international journalists. Putin said recent strikes near Kharkov were launched by NATO troops in Ukraine, which the west denies, and would result in an "asymmetrical" response. Putin also said that nuclear weapons could be used in the conflict if Russian territory or sovereignty were to be threatened. Putin also commented on the American election, saying that Biden was using the legal system to solve a political dispute with Trump, but said little would change regardless of who won in 2024. Putin also blamed Biden for not ending the war. 

My Comment;

An interesting press conference from Putin and one that should give the American government pause, though we know it won't have an effect. I knew there was going to be blowback from the idiotic decision to allow Ukraine to strike into Russia. And like I predicted, Russia is no longer going along with the lie that NATO troops aren't active participants in the war in Ukraine. 

I wouldn't take these as idle threats either, there is a lot that Russia can do to make America miserable that they have not been doing so far. Sending weapons to US enemies is an easy option and one that I am surprised that Russia hasn't already done it. 

The most obvious candidate is the Houthi Rebels in Yemen. They have been attacking US ships and international shipping for awhile now, but they have had to rely on Iran supplying them weapons. They aren't getting the best weapons available but that could change in a real hurry if Russia decides to give them weapons. So far Yemen has been an annoyance but if the Houthis get some more powerful weapons we could see more shipping hit and possibly even US ships being destroyed. And it would make things a lot harder for US attacks on the Houthis if Yemen had more advanced air defenses from Russia. 

The Houthis aren't the only option of course. Russia could also give weapons and support to the various Iranian proxies operating in the Middle East. Again, these folks have mostly been an annoyance but if they had Russian weapons they could actually pose a threat. 

I also wouldn't discount Putin's threat to use nuclear weapons. These would most likely be tactical nukes used on the battlefield. I have said in the past that it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to use these weapons in Ukraine for Russia since they are already winning. But if the Biden administration continues to escalate they might be on the table. Ukraine will use US weapons to kill Russian soldiers and civilians so it might be justified. 

I do think that Putin is wrong about nothing changing if Trump gets elected. Trump is a lot more skeptical of the war in Ukraine and is a lot more likely to cut off Ukraine if it's absolutely clear that Russia is going to win. Trump also sees himself as a dealmaker and he is also anti-war. Biden on the other hand is a huge warmonger and is also very bad at deal making. He's very likely to fail and fail badly if given a second term. Indeed, relations with Russia improved a bit with Trump in office while Biden is responsible for the war in the first place. 

Regardless, it is still baffling to me that Biden and his NATO cronies haven't cut and run from Ukraine. It's clear they aren't going to win so the only thing I can think of is that they are trying to keep Ukraine propped up until after the election. Given the election is roughly six months away, it's possible that will work but given the amount of blowback he is getting I am guessing it will backfire on him horribly... 

Trump team asks for paperwork for three possible VP candidates...

 

From left to right. North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Ohio Senator JD Vance and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. ABC News/Reuters/Getty.

The Trump campaign has asked for vetting paperwork for three possible VP candidates. ABC News. The three men include North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Ohio Senator JD Vance and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Other candidates will be considered as well but the three men are apparently the top candidates. Other names floated include Senator Tim Scott, Representatives Byron Donalds and Elise Stephanik and former Trump cabinet member Dr. Ben Carson. All three of the main candidates have been defending Trump on the cable news channels while Burgum and Vance showed up at the trial in New York. Rubio has even considered moving from Florida so he would be eligible due to constitutional issues of having a VP and Presidential candidates from the same state. Trump recently praised all three men but was slightly critical of Senator Tim Scott. 

My Comment:

Trump's pick for VP is obviously very important. With Trump being in his late seventies it would behoove him to pick a credible VP in case something were to happen to him. He doesn't want a liability like Biden has with Kamala Harris. But he also needs assassination insurance, someone who is even less acceptable than he is to the powers that be. Mike Pence served as that during his first term, but Pence ended up betraying Trump. Are any of these three men a good fit?

I have to say that I have very little information as to Dug Burgum. I know he is a governor of a red state and that he has been very supportive of Trump. But he's mostly unknown to me and I get the feeling that most other people don't really know him as well. He's not my first pick but I also don't rule him out because I know nothing about him.

I am impressed with JD Vance though. I read his book, Hillbilly Elegy and he's a man that has been in both worlds. He came up as a lower class white guy in a flyover state, so he understands the plight of the working man, but he also went to Yale law school, so he knows the world of the upper class as well. The only knock I have against him is that he didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but other than that I have a deep respect for Vance. 

Marco Rubio is more of a wild card for me. Rubio was a Trump opponent in 2016 so I don't fully trust him. He's also a product of the system with all the advantages and disadvantages of that includes. Rubio would do a lot to reassure the powers that be in terms of supporting a 2nd Trump term, but I also worry they would much rather see Rubio as President than Trump. And I also don't trust Rubio to back Trump in a situation like the 2020 election. 

It is somewhat surprising that Tim Scott or Dr. Ben Carson aren't front runners. For all the progress Trump is making with black Americans you would think that he would want a black VP candidate to shore that up even further. Of course I am not a huge fan of Tim Scott, he would certainly not be my first choice, but I do really like Carson, he would be an excellent and loyal VP and is someone that almost everyone respects, including in the black community. 

What is a little strange to me is that Trump hasn't picked anyone from a swing state. To be fair he didn't during 2016 and it didn't hurt him, but you would think he would pick someone from a major swing state to try and get a few more votes for him. North Dakota, Ohio and Florida are about as red as states get and Trump does not need help in those states at all. 

Nobody outside of Trump knows who he is going to pick but I think that the pick will tell us what he is most worried about. If he picks Rubio or Burgum I am guessing he is more worried about GOP defectors than anything else. If he picks Scott or Carson he's going for the black vote. If he somehow picks Elise Stephanik he's trying to peel off a few women. And if he picks JD Vance he's convinced he's going to win regardless and doesn't think he needs help. 

As for me I want JD Vance or Ben Carson. They are the ones I agree with the most politically and the ones I trust to do the right thing if it ever comes up. Rubio, Scott and Carson are probably the ones that would help him the most but Scott and Carson don't seem to be in the race. To be honest though, none of these men are deal-breakers and I'm going to vote for Trump whoever he picks as VP. 

Moscow says it will strike French military trainers if they show up in Ukraine

 

Russian fighter jets. Politico/AFP/Getty.

Moscow says it will strike French military trainers if they show up in Ukraine. Politico. A spokesman was quoted by AFP, the French wire service, as saying that no trainer is immune from attacks in Ukraine, no matter if they are French or not. Last week Ukraine announced that French trainers would be deployed to the country, though both countries downplayed the claim afterwards. It is unclear if foreign trainers will be sent to Ukraine or not. Russia says they believe France will do so and claim that France and other NATO countries have deployed troops there as "mercenaries". 

My Comment:

France and other NATO countries sending trainers to Ukraine is a terrible idea. Not only would they be valid targets they would be actively participating in the conflict, which gives Russia a valid casus belli to declare war on the alliance. 

Until now we have at least had the fig leaf of plausible deniability when it comes to NATO troops participating in the war. It's an open secret that NATO troops are operating the weapon systems and some are even working as infantry. NATO calls these troops "volunteers" and Russia calls them "mercenaries" but they are really just active duty soldiers that have been temporarily released from duty. 

But deploying trainers openly? That's about as dumb as allowing Ukraine to strike targets in Russia using US weapons... It's a terrible idea and again gives Russia the right to not only strike these trainers but even declare open war on the countries that send them. 

That's pretty unlikely, Russia has shown extraordinary restraint and though they have threatened to  use nuclear weapons, I don't think they actually will. They are winning the war at this point and the only way they could really lose, outside of some kind of unprecedented collapse, is if a nuclear war breaks out. They wouldn't win that war, but neither side would. 

For these trainers though, I think they will be priority targets for Russian forces. And I don't think that France would be able to protect them. Russia has pretty impressive long range strike capabilities now and Ukraine no longer has very effective anti-aircraft units. I am guessing that these trainers would be destroyed pretty quickly after being sent to Ukraine. 

And it's not like these trainers would do much anyways. Most Ukranian troops aren't getting much training anyways, at least compared to historical standards. They are just being thrown into combat without much beyond basic training. I am guessing these trainers will be used to train specialists in the Ukrainian military, like demolitions experts and tank crews. 

Still, there is still some doubt if this deployment will happen. I think it has to at this point for France to save face, but the big question is if anyone else in NATO will go along with it. I can't imagine the US doing so and there are others in the alliance, like Turkey, that won't go along with it at all. It's possible that the Baltic states and Poland will do so but that's probably it...