Citizen Writers Fighting Censorship by Helping Americans Understand Issues Affecting the Republic.
In February 2014, while Western leaders debated sanctions over Ukrainian protests, unmarked soldiers began seizing airfields and government buildings in Crimea. No insignia, no declarations, just discipline and precision — “little green men.”
For a decade, Europe’s generals had lived in a post-Soviet afterglow, studying maps of Kaliningrad, the Suwałki Gap, and the Carpathians. Russia was weak, its army hollow, its population declining.
An alternative history built from the true Balkans laboratory that almost ignited something far larger.
George Washington warned us 230 years ago to “steer clear of entangling alliances.” We didn’t listen. Europe didn’t either in 1914 — and one royal assassination later, the whole continent lit itself on fire.
Prussian Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke the Elder wrote, “No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength,” which is frequently bastardized as “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” I’m old enough to remember when debates in the United States were all about matching the Soviets in …
No one starts a war—or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so—without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”
~Carl von Clausewitz
The 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia over Kosovo was billed as a humanitarian mission—a righteous stand against ethnic cleansing in Europe. But behind the moral pretense was something more enduring and more dangerous
This is Part 1 of 3, about the story of a broken promise—and the consequences that would echo from the Balkans to the Black Sea.
America was willing to go to war with the Soviet during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a military incursion on our border. Is American willing to go to war with Russia over one of its neighbors?
I was sent this picture a few days ago and asked if it reflected reality geographically or geopolitically. My answer was a simple one to start:
Europe and NATO have been asking themselves of late if they can depend on the United States to be there for them in case of attack by a foreign enemy. But the real question is whether we can depend on them to be worthy of our blood and treasure.
NATO: A lean, mean defense alliance, it stood as the West’s bulwark against Soviet expansion during the Cold War.
A few days ago, Moldova, the second poorest nation in Europe after beleaguered Ukraine, held a national referendum where their people approved, by a slim 50.4%, to join the European Union.
Only Poland and Romania, bordering Ukraine and with 38 and 18 million people respectively, have the population base sufficient to raise troops to continue the war with Russia.
The Real Motives Behind the 1999 Bombing of Serbia: Kosovo and the Strategic NATO Presence in Southeastern Europe
Beneath NATO’s defensive posture lies a darker side characterized by offensive operations, psychological warfare, and deceptive tactics that have shaped geopolitical landscapes in ways often obscured from public view.
Trump should tell our NATO partners that either Russia, Ukraine, and anyone else that wants to join can join, or we pull out and stop funding it.
Over the weekend, Republicans and Democrats in Congress alike borrowed another $60 billion — $60,000,000,000 — to give to Ukraine, a nation known for pretty women and large bribes to the spawn of Biden, Pelosi and other DC scum.
“Abandoning NATO allies could effectively end the security umbrella that has long guarded friends in Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East”
I have said it before: There has been a whole lot of World War II thinking applied to the Russo-Ukraine War — or perhaps I should call it Russo-Ukraine War 2.0, considering Russia’s seizure and annexation of part of Ukraine in 2014 — with the logic that pushed the United Kingdom and France to declare war …