How Can the American Left So Blithely Want to Increase the Chances of a Nuclear War?

The argument is always the same: “if we don’t do this now, it will harm American security in the future.” If only people realized that what we are doing now is already harming American security! From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

If they win, MAGA Republicans will push to abandon Ukraine and harm U.S. security.

GOP candidates, along with Musk and Trump, echo Kremlin talking points in pushing to end Ukraine aid and force Kyiv to negotiate with genocidal Putin

by Trudy Rubin | Sunday, November 6, 2022

Trudy Rubin, from her Twitter biography.

The ad during the first World Series game between the Phillies and the Houston Astros was terrifying — and totally misleading.

It denounced Joe Biden for sending billions in aid and weapons to Ukraine while U.S. cities were awash in crime and undocumented immigrants. “Joe Biden says his fight in Ukraine could lead to nuclear Armageddon. World War III,” the ad’s narrator intoned. “I say no mas.”

Trudy Rubin is a long-time columnist for the Inquirer, and a member of the newspaper’s Editorial Board. Someone so intimately familiar with the City of Brotherly Love cannot be unaware that her home city actually is “awash in crime and undocumented immigrants”. As her own newspaper reported, there was another mass shooting in the Kensington neighborhood, which the Inky recently described as “a section of Philadelphia beset by an open-air drug market and higher concentrations of poverty and addiction” and saying “no neighborhood has been as burdened by shootings.” With 445 homicides and a total of 2004 shooting victims as of Monday, October 31st, it would certainly seem to me that Philly is “awash in crime”.

Does Miss Rubin dispute that President Biden and the Democratic majority in Congress have sent billions of dollars in aid and equipment to Ukraine? Does she deny that President Biden and his Administration have talked about “World War III” and nuclear war? One wouldn’t think she would, considering that she linked the Washington Post article documenting it!

More than 1.1 million viewers “liked” the ad when it surfaced on Twitter.

Well, Heaven forfend! 1.1 million people are opposed to increasing the probability of nuclear war? A scandal!

The ad’s sponsor was a virulently anti-immigrant, dark money group called Citizens for Sanity, which is linked to Steven Miller, former President Donald Trump’s close White House aide and anti-immigration tsar. Yet the attack on U.S. aid to Ukraine — in language that could have been taken from the Kremlin’s own playbook — was especially disturbing.

While there’s a lot more in Miss Rubin’s column, this is the money line: being opposed to American aid to one side in a conflict where the other side has a strategic nuclear arsenal capable of incinerating every large American city is “especially disturbing.”

This has, of course, been much of the Democrats’ and the neoconservatives’ playbook: if you are opposed to a policy which increases the probability of nuclear war, why you must be pro-Russia and Vladimir Putin’s stooge! That someone might be opposed to the increased chances of a nuclear war without being sympathetic to Russia seems not to be an idea they can accept, or at least that can’t accept it until after the election.

The advertisement is a preview of what to expect if Tuesday’s elections return a MAGA-heavy GOP majority to the House of Representatives, let alone the Senate. And it is a gift to Vladimir Putin, who hopes his battlefield losses in Ukraine will be offset by MAGA victories in the U.S.A.

The Inquirer is, as you might have guessed, wholly in the bag for the Democrats, and the Editorial Board absotively, posilutely hate Donald Trump and “Make America Great Again” Republicans. Much of the idea behind Miss Rubin’s column is an appeal to vote, if not for Democrats, against Republicans.

I do not know if the columnist has any control over where related article blurbs appear on the newspaper’s website, but the one pictured at the left showed up immediately below her last quoted paragraph, and it leads to another of Miss Rubin’s columns:

Putin’s nuclear threats and strikes on civilians rule out negotiations or an off-ramp

Biden should expedite arrival of air defenses for Ukraine and make clear to Putin that nuclear use would be catastrophic for Russia.

by Trudy Rubin | Thursday, October 13, 2022

On Tuesday morning, as news broke of Russia’s vicious missile strikes on civilian targets all across Ukraine, I texted a friend in the badly hit city of Kharkiv.

“We will not be intimidated,” Oleksiy quickly texted back. (I am using only his first name because he is now serving with the Ukrainian army.) “Kharkiv is ready for this.” He told me he was cooking borscht on a makeshift outdoor grill as we spoke because a barrage of Russian missiles had knocked out electricity in the city. The Russians had also targeted a children’s playground, civilian apartment blocks, and a downtown crossroads at morning rush hour.

That reminded me of a part of Herman Wouk’s The Winds of War, in which one of the characters in the novel mused how interesting it was that Nazi propaganda said that Allied bombs missed military targets but fell unerringly on schools, churches, and hospitals.

A couple of paragraphs down, she continued:

Ukrainians believe they are in an existential struggle for the very survival of their homeland. They are willing to pay a very high price for victory. Now is not the time for cease-fires or negotiations, which would only give the Russians a breather to rally their flailing troops. . . . .

Ukrainians like Oleksiy say any peace talks are impossible until Russian forces are driven out of most or all of their country. What kind of negotiations can be held with a Russian leader who insists that the Ukrainian state has no right to exist because it is part of Russia? Putin insists that Russia will never return the roughly 20% of Ukraine that it has annexed via fake referendums — including the Black and Azov Sea coastal areas that are key to the Ukrainian economy.

What follows that is what the columnist wishes that President Biden would say, which is, in effect, unconditional surrender. No, she doesn’t use those two words, but the effect is the same. A face-saving way out for Russia or a negotiated cease-fire? Not in Miss Rubin’s world.

But the last time the words ‘unconditional surrender’ were used as national policy meant that the nations against which they were directed, Germany and Japan, had to be beaten into complete submission, bombed until Hell wouldn’t have any more, and thoroughly militarily defeated. Germany and Japan, however, did not have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them on their enemies’ home soil, and really, no way to attack the United States at all; Vladimir Putin has those things.

If there is to be no easy way out for Russia, and no negotiated cease-fire or settlement, that means the war in Ukraine must continue until one side of the other is militarily defeated. If that happens, there are only two options:

  1. Russia wins, in which case Ukraine not only loses its freedom and independence, but sees hundreds of thousands more of its civilians killed and much of its infrastructure and economy destroyed; or
  2. Ukraine wins, in which case a huge amount of Russia’s military equipment is lost, damaged, or destroyed, and many, many thousands of its soldiers killed, along with President Putin driven with his back against the wall, and little reason not to try to use tactical nuclear weapons against advancing Ukrainian troops and military bastions.

Even Miss Rubin noted that Mr Biden “warned recently that Putin’s nuclear threats raise ‘the prospect of Armageddon.'”

Such a casual remark, at a campaign fund-raiser, scares rather than educates, and conveys uncertainty to Putin.

Ma’am, it ought to scare people; the threat of nuclear war ought to scare everybody!

In Dr Strangelove, when Ambassador Alexei de Sadeskii reveals the existence of the ‘Doomsday Machine,’ President Merton Muffley asks him, “I’m afraid I don’t understand something, Alexei. Is the Premier threatening to explode this if our planes carry out this attack?”, at which point the Ambassador replies, “No, sir, it is not a thing a sane man would do.” It isn’t, but Miss Rubin, and President Biden, and the whole cavalcade of neocon warmongers are now somehow depending upon the sanity and Western logic that Mr Putin has yet to demonstrate that he has.

And if they’re wrong, if they manage to provide enough weapons and money and materiel for Ukraine to beat back the Russians, and Vladimir Vladimirovich does decide that ‘battlefield’ or ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons are the only way to reverse a military defeat, what happens then? Perhaps Miss Rubin isn’t worried about Citizens Bank Park and the Liberty Bell being incinerated in nuclear fire, but I am, and the escalation of the use of nuclear weapons, once that threshold is crossed, is something we can never know when it will stop.
Follow me on Twitter! Check out my website, The First Street Journal, for stories not on American Free News network.

Follow AFNN:

8 thoughts on “How Can the American Left So Blithely Want to Increase the Chances of a Nuclear War?”

  1. I don’t see a solution to the Ukraine-Russia problem because of crap, like she wrote, and her favorite hair sniffing moron of a president not having the mind, morals and character to do what is right. We lost that ability when Trump “Lost” the election of 2020.

    When you have two countries, both of which you have no good reason to be intervening for, and your last hope for someone who could have prevented it, lost to the moron, what can you do?
    I wonder if Trudy can set aside her political leanings long enough to see what the outcome of a war like that leaves the country she lives in with? Like every Democrat who can’t get out of bed without help, our latest dribbling fool would have to drag us into that war. They always take a crisis, whether or not it even pertains to us, and uses it as a precept to start a war, or, in this case, join in and make things worse.

    The only war we should be intervening in is the one with Democrats in our own country, since they already started it.

    I wonder if Trudy is pure bred leftist or someone like that Jen Rubin, who is a fake everything? I can’t help but see a physical connection. They both seemed to have gone to the Journalism School of Karl Marx.

    • Trudy Rubin could have been called a neoconservative earlier in her career, writing primarily on foreign policy issues, and it looks like she’s gone full neocon again, as the more famous neoconservatives — Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin and the like — have all gone “Never Trump” and, thinking that Vladimir Vladimirovich loves President Trump, have to oppose Russia at every turn, in every situation.

      There’s also a misapplication of World War Ii logic here. The British and French didn’t have the nerve to stop Adolf Hitler when he re-militarized the Rhine, something they should have easily been able to do, and Neville Chamberlain tried appeasement when it came to the Sudetenland.

      But the British and French didn’t have the wherewithal to stop Germany on the Sudetenland, anymore than they were able to come to Poland’s aid, despite their unconditional guarantees to Poland, due to geography. They simply couldn’t project military power there. Germany, of course, even after conquering France, couldn’t project military power across 20 miles of the English Channel, much less across the Atlantic Ocean.

      Everything is different now: we have the power to project nation-destroying nuclear death against the Soviet Union Russia, and Russia has the ability to project enough nuclear death against us, all in half an hour. The lessons of World War II are simply not the lessons for today, but the neocons and the left just can’t fathom that.

      • I agree with that, except that the power projection may be complicated by the parties, which include China in that mix, and capabilities are closer to being unknown, nowadays, so the fear of that power may be more than the real threat. All else is the same, due to geography and it’s ability to move that power. Russia can be seen as a third world country with the threat of first world nuclear capability, but it is unproven, like the capability claimed by them during the Cold War. And China has the largest standing army on the planet, with a similar untested nuclear capability, so they fall back to being perceived through the eyes of a political fear based threat.

        The left is expediting our country to being brought down those few notches, as Obama intended, by a dangerous buffoon held up by puppet strings.

        Our current problems are solely based on a poor and politically motivated Intelligence community and and ideology that only has a hunger for power, for power’s sake, and is willing to give up that power to others for the sake of managing decline. I agree with you about the history, but the rules have changed, also.
        When one political ideology is willing to throw away and weaken our country, for the sake of perceived power, no one benefits except our potential adversaries. Democrats have only one goal, and are willing to give up sovereignty to attain it. That is the real threat we face, and for our survival, it is a must to be corrected.

        I think where we might have a strong difference of opinion is the potential for nuclear Armageddon. I’m not as concerned about that threat as I am the internal threat by Democrats. But that threat does remain. Entropy is hard to predict, and is always a wildcard.
        That problem concerning neocons is that they provide no wisdom in their desire for war. War is always the solution. I think Trump provided that evidence when he was in office by showing them their fallacy. I hope that doesn’t get lost in history, because it is a valuable lesson that can be overlooked by people who choose personality over actions.

        • It can be argued that the nuclear capabilities of Russia and China are unproven; neither they, nor anyone else, has launched an ICBM or SLBM and detonated a nuclear weapon at the end of its trajectory. We’ve tested components in various capacities, but never the entire system together.

          But that almost doesn’t matter. If Russia’s strategic arsenal is degraded to just 10%, meaning if they shoot 100 nuclear warheads at us but only ten reach their targets and detonate, that’s still a disaster greater than we have ever experienced.

          • I agree with that, too. What concerns me more, however, is when we base our decisions on fear, and fail to do what is in our interest, at the same time. An argument could be made about that point, just considering how we protect our own elections. It was proven last night, that we have moved to a society that allows ideology to undermine common sense. Take that out to an extreme, considering what happens when people who steal elections, not all, but very calculated people nonetheless, will do to what remains of our military capability, which is what I think our focus should be on, not the threat of some other country’s supposed nuclear capability.
            When foxes are guarding the hen house, you get less eggs.
            So, my concern is not how I die, but why I died. What could I have done to prevent that situation, other than nature’s processes taking their course?

            I think what I am trying to say is that charity begins at home, and we forgot how to protect ourselves, so if that’s the case, what does it matter if we get hit by a nuclear exchange, or get invaded by a stronger military? Look at what one ideology, and some could argue that it is both, but one definitely, is doing to cause either to be the case, and that lesson seems to have been lost, as of yesterday. Complacency just kills, in the end. It happened in the Roman Empire, as in all other civilizations that are no more.

            Granted, it took me way too long to come to this conclusion, but it is moral decay and complacency, and our relationship with God, that will determine how our fate, at least in some worldly sense. The nukes mean nothing when you think about it, like that.
            It’s like the choice a condemned man has. Blindfold and a cigarette, or not?

  2. The Left are (usually) very very very well insulated from the disastrous consequences of their machinations. They don’t consider consequences because they don’t suffer any, as a rule. It probably hasn’t occurred to them that their thoroughly rigged system won’t protect them from nukes.

  3. Because they’re incapable of reasoned thought: One look at the past 20 months should confirm that handily. Defending EU leftists who are abusing NATO into an offensive and instigating role is not a questionable pproach in their minds. Negotiating with a nationalist nation makes it that much more intractable. I’m content to watch Putin win and Zelesky flee. The Italians have it right – stop sending arms to end this. Save your tax money for the 20 million or so Ukranian refugees (half their population) who will flood Europe in 2023.

  4. The answer to that question is simple, straightforward and already public knowledge. The WEF has depopulation of the planet on its agenda. It’s part of the Great Reset.

Leave a Comment