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... 

Jury empaneled in Hunter Biden federal gun crime trial.

 

Hunter Biden arrives in court. BBC/Getty.

A jury has been empaneled in the Hunter Biden federal gun crime trial. BBC. Prosecutors say that Hunter Biden lied on the federal background check form ATF Form 4473 about his drug use. If convicted on all three charges Biden would face 25 years in prison. In addition to the gun charge, Biden was charged for two counts of lying on the form and one count of illegal gun possession. Biden threw the gun, a revolver, away and it was recovered at a Delaware grocery store. The evidence against Biden is strong as he had admitted that he was a drug addict in texts and other communications, as well as testimony against him. Joe Biden has vowed to support his son. 

My Comment:

I have mixed feelings on this. I don't think there is any real doubt that Hunter Biden is guilty of what he was charged with. The ATF form  (PDF) asks if you have used illegal drugs and Biden was absolutely using illegal drugs in the time frame that Biden bought the gun. I don't see how Biden gets away with this if the jury follows the law. This is about as close to an open and shut case as I have ever seen.

My problem is that I don't think the form is constitutional under the standard set by NYSRPA v Bruen that says that gun laws have to have a historical precedence. I don't believe that precedence exists for background check forms. I also think that even drug users should have a right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, there is some thought that if Hunter Biden is convicted for this he could end up appealing it to the Supreme Court and form 4473 could be overturned. Wouldn't that be something, the son of one of the worst anti-gun presidents in American history being responsible for overturning a bad gun law?

I also feel that this is probably a politically motivated prosecution. People are only rarely charged for lying under 4473 and I don't think Hunter Biden would have been charged if the Republicans hadn't embarrassed the government into filing charges. Though given that Donald Trump was charged and convicted for entirely political reasons of a crime that didn't really exist until Democrats created it, perhaps a bit of tit for tat is justifiable. Regardless, I don't think the law should be selectively applied, even if Hunter Biden absolutely broke the law and should go to prison for it, ignoring any constitutional issues with the law. 

Will the jury convict? It really depends. Delaware is a blue state and I am guessing most if not all of the jury voted for Joe Biden and might not want to do anything to hurt his chances in 2024. I also fear that they will be threatened given how much of an absolute thug Joe Biden is. 

But if it comes down to the evidence I can't imagine that Hunter Biden is acquitted. The case is pretty open and shut so I think the only real possibilities of Biden getting off is jury nullification, a mistrial or some kind of absolutely terrible performance by the prosecutors or a masterful one by the defense. I don't really see any of those things happening so I am guessing that Biden will be convicted. 

Will this have much of an impact on the 2024 race? Much like the Trump show-trial, I don't think it will really affect anything. Unlike 2020, everyone already knows how much of a scumbag Hunter Biden is and honestly, Biden's son isn't the one running. Everything that will come out in this trial is already baked into the 2024 election, same with the Trump conviction. I have been saying for awhile that this election will come down to the economy and foreign policy, not the personalities and foils of the respective candidates of the Republican and Democratic Parties. 

Russia former President warns that Russia's threats to use nuclear weapons are not a bluff.

 

Former Russian President and current head of the Security Council Dimitry Medvedev. Reuters. 

Former Russian President and current head of the Security Council Dimitry Medvedev said that Russia's threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine are not a bluff. Reuters. Medvedev said that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in Ukraine if the West does not change course. Medvedev said the conflict was developing into a worst case scenario. He also said that Russia considers all long ranged Ukrainian weapons to be crewed by NATO servicemembers and that counts as a direct attack by NATO on Russia itself. Medvedev said those attacks are a casus belli for a declaration of war. Medvedev is considered a hardliner compared to current Russian President Putin but his words are thought to represent the hard line faction in Russia. The comments come after Joe Biden quietly allowed Ukraine to strike targets in Russia using US provided long range weapons.

My Comment:

This is a fairly stark warning from a still powerful man in Russia. But it is important to note that Medvedev is a hard liner and does not speak for Putin directly. He's consistently been one of the most anti-NATO voices in Russia and a far cry from Putin who was at least willing to talk to the west before they went totally insane. 

But I also think that Medvedev is right, Russia would have a valid casus belli for war against the west. He's right about western troops operating these long range weapon systems, including weapons that have been used to target both infrastructure and civilians in Russia itself. The west is in a de facto war with Russia at this point and the only thing that isn't making it a de jure war is the restraint of Putin.

Which is why it always makes me laugh when the west's plan was to have Putin removed from office... somehow. Assuming such a thing was even possible there is no guarantee that whoever would replace him would suddenly bend the knee and do whatever it is the west wants this week. Indeed, we are a lot more likely to see someone like Medvedev take power, if not Medvedev himself. I am guessing if Putin were to be out of power somehow, most likely due to advanced age or poor health, it wouldn't be long before the west missed him. 

Will nuclear weapons be used in Ukraine? I kind of doubt it. Perhaps if NATO deploys hundreds of thousands of troops it will happen then but until that point Russia has little to gain by using tactical nuclear weapons. It's very clear now that Russia is winning the war and the only real way they could "lose" is if a major nuclear exchange were to happen between NATO and Russia. I put lose in quotes there because mutually assured destruction is just that, nobody would win in a nuclear war. 

Still, I have no idea what the west is thinking, if they are thinking at all at this point. They seem utterly deranged when it comes to Russia and have no real understanding that Ukraine is a lost cause. Instead they are just doubling down again and again. Sending F-16's or even a small contingent of training troops won't change the outcome. Hell, even a nuclear war wouldn't let Ukraine win. But at this point the leadership in the west is so deranged that they might not even care if their allies, soldiers or even own civilian people get nuked as long as they get proven "right" in the end. 

A couple days ago when the Trump trial happened I said that the real story was Biden allowing US weapons to attack Russia directly. I said back then that conviction would be a moot point if the election doesn't happen because we all got nuked because Biden's terrible foreign policy. Looks like I may have been right, though I still hope, somehow, that cooler heads prevail...