Share
Commentary

Tucker: Elites Believe a Deadly Lie About the Ukraine Crisis - And It Could Get Us All Killed

Share

COVID, inflation, vaccine mandates, drug overdoses, urban violence, growing federal regulation, a corrupt Department of Justice.

What can we do to mess it up more?

How about this? Let’s go to war with Russia!

Those are the unbelievable talking points coming from Those Who Know Best in Washington.

“So why are they doing this?” Tucker Carlson asked Monday on his Fox News program. “That’s a complex question – hubris, stupidity, the damaged psychological makeup of our leaders, massive lobbying campaigns by Ukrainian politicians and American defense contractors.

Trending:
ESPN's Sage Steele Bloodied and Hospitalized After Being Pelted by Errant Shot at PGA Championship: Report

“All of those factors play a role in this. No tragedy has a single cause. But what’s not at all complicated is who benefits from our conflict with Russian.

“China benefits. Period.”

 

At first, one could say the crazy U.S. saber-rattling over Ukraine is beyond belief. What are these people thinking?

Are U.S. elites believing a lie about Ukraine?

Russia!  Where a previous eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with the U.S. in 1962 over missiles in Cuba had the world hour-by-hour on edge in dread of nuclear war.

Ironically, the current Ukranian situation is, from Russia’s viewpoint, the Cuban missile crisis in reverse, according to an op-ed for The Western Journal by Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (retired), former President Trump’s national security advisor.

Russia objects to Ukraine being admitted to NATO, which would permit stationing of missiles on Russia’s border. Those missiles would be even closer to Russia than Soviet missiles were to the U.S. when placed in Cuba in 1962, Flynn wrote.

And crazily enough, there’s talk  of using nukes against Russian troops.

Related:
New NBC Report Offers Powerful Evidence Biden Lied About Hunter and China During Trump Debate - Here's the Video

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), who is on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that all options must be considered to protect the Ukrainian border.

“I would not rule out military action,” Wicker said. “I think we start making a mistake when we take options off the table, so I would hope the president keeps that option on the table.”

Asked to define military action, Wicker replied: “Military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea and we rain destruction on Russian military capability.  … It could mean that we participate … and I would not rule out American troops on the ground.”

And then, Wicker said, there’s the nuclear part, as in first strike, no less: “We don’t, you know, we don’t rule out first use of nuclear action, that we don’t think it’ll happen, but there’s certain things in negotiations if you’re going to be tough that you don’t take off the table.”

The insanity is bipartisan — Wicker noted that Cavuto had previously had Democrats on the program taking a strong stand for Ukraine. “We have the realization that we have in the Congress that losing a free democratic Ukraine to Russian invasion would be a game changer for a free Europe.”

Carlson raised the question all of us should be asking – why?

“The fact is, Ukraine is strategically irrelevant to the United States – no rational person could defend a war with Russia over Ukraine or nobody thinks a war like that would make America safer, or stronger or more prosperous.

“…We have no obligation to defend any country, either one of these countries. What’s wrong is to support either one of them. Their interests are not the same as ours,” Carlson said.

A sanction proposed against Russia would halt U.S. supplies of semiconductors to Russia, which would affect consumer products like smart phones, Carlson said. As a result, the Chinese would benefit, because they’ve already pledged to supply Russia with those semiconductors.

Given that, “The Biden administration succeeded in continuing to drive our two main global rivals closer to a permanent alliance with one another,” Carlson said.

What’s more, the U.S. can only enforce sanctions because our dollar is the world’s reserve currency, he continued. What happens if Russian and China convince the rest of the world to switch away from the dollar?

We’re toast. “Suddenly the United States would no longer be able to run an economy based on debt,” according to Carlson. “We would be impoverished immediately overnight.

“Has no one in Washington thought of this?”

One driving force for another U.S. war might be coming from defense contractors, Carlson surmised. Noting that left-leaning Politico has been beating the war drums, Carlson pointed to a Politico story headlined “Psaki: Russian could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine,” and noted an ad on the Politico page for an Army aircraft from defense contractor Lockheed Martin.

Coincidence?  Carlson doesn’t think so. And he had more, pointing to a Washington Post op-ed written by Michael Vickers calling for more support for Ukraine including military. Besides having been in special forces, the CIA and in defense department positions, Vickers, Carlson said, is on the board of defense contractor BAE Systems.

“But somehow the Washington Post didn’t bother to tell readers about this. It remained undisclosed,” according to Carlson.

He said the Chinese presumably can’t believe their good fortune “As the entire political leadership class of the United States runs at full speed in the wrong direction, away from Asia, which is so clearly the future, and toward the murky past on the fringes of Eastern Europe.”

There has been little “meaningful” reporting of massive military buildup along the Ukraine border, according to Flynn, with “most American having no idea how close we have been brought to armed conflict with the Russian Federation.”

Tellilngly, the U. S. Constitution provided an important safeguard against reckless incursion into war. Congress is where war powers are supposed to be embedded, an authority, despite so many wars since, that was last exercised in the 1941 declaration of U.S. entry into World War Two.

Perhaps because of the cost of total war from 1939 to 1945, coupled with the concept of unconditional surrender, punctuated by the use of nuclear weapons made later political leaders timid about exercising formal declarations of war.

But there still have been wars, and their often poorly defined objectives have been costly in American blood, treasure and confidence in the government.

Now, when the detached elites in their fortress on the Potomac observe what’s happening in the world, it’s sad that in one more area the wisdom of the Founders is absent.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Share
Mike Landry, PhD, is a retired business professor. He has been a journalist, broadcaster and church pastor. He writes from Northwest Arkansas on current events and business history.
Mike Landry, PhD, is a retired business professor. He has been a journalist, broadcaster and church pastor. He writes from Northwest Arkansas on current events and business history.




Conversation