Citizen Writers Fighting Censorship by Helping Americans Understand Issues Affecting the Republic.
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 …
At the risk of being called a Putin stooge, a traitor, a Russian apologist, et al, or worse, here goes. Why has the President of the United States been constantly threatening nuclear war for the last few months?
“If there were more women in leadership positions around the world there would be less conflict and less war,” Peter Clavalle, board chair of the Vermont Council on World Affairs.
Europe Today For the last several years, the United States, along with NATO, has been poking the Russian bear, apparently pushing for war with Russia. Why? When Trump was president it was Russia, Russia, Russia. When Democrats found that Trump was actually getting along with Putin, they became further enraged, even though Trump …
As Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine continues, NATO is drawn deeper and deeper into the morass. While many NATO companies are supplying Ukraine with arms and equipment, the war is creating a change in the organization itself. Finland and Sweden, both with long histories of neutrality, have applied for membership in NATO. That action was …
Both civilians died after the heartless shooting that goes against the so-called rules of war that outlaw the targeting of civilians.