33 Comments
User's avatar
Dr. K's avatar

This may be the best long-form piece on the current situation I have seen. Kudos.

Expand full comment
George S. Bardmesser's avatar

“The Iraq Wars removed Saddam on the basis of a lie and ended up with long years of anarchy and chaos in a ruined nation, hundreds of thousands of pointless civilian deaths, and no WMDs firmly proving the whole thing was completely pointless….save for the point of generating vast military and rebuilding contracts, of course.”

It’s worth mentioning that the number of civilian deaths in Iraq that can be ascribed to US operations fighting insurgency (or relating to it) is under considerable debate. The high number (one hundred thousand, or similar numbers) usually comes from sources about as trustworthy as the “Gaza Ministry of Health”. The people counting these deaths almost always have an ideological agenda, and a strong incentive to count every death twice or three or four times, to take rough estimates that are based on little more than wild-ass guesses at face value, and to count every bearded guy with an AK as a civilian because his family says he was just an innocent bystander out for a stroll.

I have seen numbers as low as 8,000 civilians. Whatever the real number is (and we’ll probably never know what the real number is), I tend to believe it is far, far lower than the hundreds of thousands often mentioned.

Not to quibble with the rest of it, obviously.

“The Ukraine stalemate has not weakened Russia internationally or strengthened the West geopolitically. Our interventionism has had a reverse effect to any rational one that might explain it. It’s harmed the German economy more than the Russian one (Russia ultimately secured increased trade by being forced to pivot from the West to India and China-the current GDP growth for Germany is -0.27% i.e. contraction, for Britain a measly 0.34% growth that is effectively recession and for Russia a healthy 3.6% growth).”

OK, here, with all due respect, I have to quibble rather vociferously. By what measure is Russia stronger internationally? Because it has North Korea as an ally now? Because it has Iran as an (ahem) ally? The Baltic Sea is now a NATO lake – Russia considers that a MAJOR defeat, even if it prefers not to talk about it, since there is nothing it can do about it. Sweden and Finland being members of NATO is also a defeat from the Russian perspective. (I am not debating the worth of NATO here, or the value of adding them to NATO – I am simply pointing out that TO RUSSIA, these are major defeats.)

For Putin, having to consort with African cannibals at his “summits” instead of European chancellors and prime ministers is a huge blow. Now, you can argue that Keir Starmer or the feckless EU politicians are no better than some cannibal from Congo – and you may be right. But PUTIN doesn’t see it that way.

Russia lost the markets in Europe, and its pivot to China has been pitiful from an economic perspective. China takes in Russian natural resources, and returns shoddy Chinese goods at double or triple their normal price. In other words, Russia has become, functionally, a colony of China. Its other export to China, btw, is young Russian women looking for Chinese husbands. Yes, it’s a big industry these days.

There is no 3.6% growth in Russia, any more than there is 5% growth in China. These numbers are completely cooked – even Russian officials at the recent St. Petersburg Economic Forum are admitting, through gritted teeth, that things are going badly economically. How badly? We don’t really know, since actual data from the government is no longer trustworthy (if it is published at all – just as in China, btw), but any growth is just military hardware being burned up on the battlefields.

“all while driving Russia into the arms of China and speeding the building of BRICS as an alternative power block.”

BRICS is an organization whose members have nothing in common with each other. It’s just a talking club. In the case of China and India, they are not even friends – they have serious border disputes, and India is looking to displace China now as the world’s factory. A discussion of BRICS as an alternative to anything is just a fantasy.

I generally agree with the rest of the piece, but here, I think the author was driving a bit too fast around the bend.

Incidentally, breaking news: Trump announced a ceasefire in the Israel-Iran war coming in a few hours. Personally, I would have preferred to see another week of mostly peaceful but fiery Israeli airstrikes on Iran, but I assume Netanyahu and Trump know more than I do. Perhaps Israel is close to running out of easy targets.

Expand full comment
kay's avatar

The weapons of mass destruction came from the intelligence community. It's never ceases to amaze me that absolutely no one has never considered that, given what Saddam was like, he had people telling him he had weapons of mass destruction when he didn't. That's a far more logical reason for so many intelligence agencies to believe this, it was the narrative there.

Expand full comment
Jim Turner's avatar

or he lied about having them

Expand full comment
Patricia's avatar

Excellently argued. Re 'the reductive error of the Gnostic Right' I have long pondered why 'researchers' on any topic invariably snatch at answers without any concrete supporting evidence. I presume, apart from laziness, there must be a recurrent and/or long lasting biochemical hit from 'I'm so clever I have solved everything'. I spent years researching family history and in doing so connected with endless others doing the same. I soon found that most of them (90%) based their research on pure 'leaps of faith' or copying other people's research which invariably resulted in garbage results. Why bother? When challenged to produce evidence - crickets every time. To illustrate the appalling standards one researcher told me that one of our ancestors was an illegimate child of the Duke of Northumberland - in actual fact he was born in a pub called The Duke of Northumberland according to the birth certificate. In other words he abandoned the evidence and favoured a fantasy.

Expand full comment
Judy Kaplan Warner's avatar

That is hilarious.

Expand full comment
Patricia's avatar

That is what I thought

Expand full comment
Sarah's avatar

Excellent article, although I don't necessarily agree with you on every point e.g Iraq, although the reasons for the intervention were flaky, as you say. Knowing many Iraqis and what they suffered under Saddam's brutal, murderous regime, our intervention and subsequent removal of Saddam was welcomed, and I don't think what happened afterwards could have been predicted. We should have been aware, though, that Iran's later intervention to help US & UK rid the Region of Sunni ISIS was because of their own expansionist desires. Their constant chants of "We're off to Kerbala" from the beginning of the Iran/Iraq War should have been taken seriously. Iran now controls Iraq and its oil via its Shi'a proxies. The majority in Iraq are Shi'a, so one might presume that they are happier now than they were under Saddam, but I think they are realising that Iran's only interest is control and power in the Region, motivated by revenge for the battle of Kerbala (look how worried the Sunni Arab States are) or to establish its former greatness, emulating the likes of Cyrus The Great. By attacking Israel, Iran has succeeded in gaining the support of both Muslims worldwide and gaining control of 'the Narrative'.

Re Afghanistan, I don't necessarily think our intervention a bad thing because so many Afghans were happy with us there. However, we should have realised that it wasn't a quick fix and would need far more resources and manpower to maintain.

Re Libya, I strongly disagree with our intervention there because most Libyans had a good standard of living, and Gaddafi wasn't nearly so brutal as other Dictators, from what I heard. Gaddafi's removal has proved a disaster and so unnecessary.

Realising the dangers we are now facing, I do see Trump's intervention in a positive light: our subservience to the Woke ideology has rendered the West weak and open to attack and subversion from within. If we don't show strength, then the West is lost.

I do try to think independently, even if people disagree with me, or I turn out to be wrong. All this collective thinking I find quite disturbing.

I really enjoy your articles, thank you.

Expand full comment
Mitchell Rapoport's avatar

A superb analysis. The Times (either one) could never produce anything like it. BTW, I think there’s a fair chance that Trump will use the NATO meeting to shut down the Ukraine War. You heard it here. 😉

Expand full comment
Barry Lederman, “normie”'s avatar

Trump declared also end to Rwanda–DRCongo conflict. The win for US is another access to rare earth minerals. How many peace agreements Trump has to negotiate to get the Nobel Peace prize? Oh yeah, the Russia Ukraine one!

Expand full comment
kay's avatar

These are interesting times aren't they? People going ballistic over minor issues as you pointed out, and actually standing for Iran having nukes as we watch them burn the American flag weekly, send out suicide bombers regularly, and treat their women like property.

Expand full comment
Bettina's avatar

Brilliant 👏🏻. You have explained exactly why I, a pacifist, cheered when I heard about the US operation Midnight Hammer. Bravo! Love Trump! He is the iron fist in a velvet glove. We all know that however much you might abhor violence, you have to stand up to bullies or you get pulverised eventually. Precision surgical strike on military targets, versus Iran lobbing bombs at civilians. The naysayers have cheese for brains if they can't work out who the goodies are in this.

Expand full comment
fredo49's avatar

Here, here - very well argued. Thank you.

Expand full comment
Douglas Brodie's avatar

Excellent analysis, showing Trump in stark contrast to the failed Iran “diplomacy” by Obama and the EU muppets going back over 15 years, replicated by Biden and the current EU (and UK/Canada).

However I have a niggling doubt about what is going on in Iran. There seems to be an element of stage-management about the whole thing, e.g. the surveillance photos from before the bombing of long lines of trucks outside the Iran nuclear facilities and the Iran advance notice of “retaliation” against US bases in the region. Hopefully it will all work out for the best.

Expand full comment
Patrick  Clarke's avatar

I had reservations about bombing Iran, because there always seems to be one more regime and its weapons standing between us and an elusive peaceful world which has to be removed. When it is removed another one always crops up somewhere else though. If I'm being proved wrong this time then no one will be more relieved or more pleased than myself, however there's still some way to go before we can be certain how we assess the outcome to this latest campaign.

Expand full comment
Mick Bolton's avatar

I have just one criticism to level at Donald in regards to Iran, he has brokered a ceasefire between |srael/Iran which comes into force today.

They are all screaming against 'regime change' ... Could a regime change in Iran be any worse than the Theocratic junta that holds power today? I don't think so. The rule of the Shah wasn't by any means 'perfect' ... but it was a bloody sight better than that which usurped power back in 1979.

The bottom line is that the mad mullahs MUST NOT be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. THEY WOULD USE THEM.

Expand full comment
Farloticus's avatar

TLDR

Expand full comment
Kathy Ward's avatar

agreed! I am so sad about Tucker, I always enjoyed his conversations with people, particularly the one with Patrick Soon Shiong, but this wading into the insane is just too much.

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

Hey Daniel, I married a Jewish girl. I even went to temple with her and took conversion lessons. I also have many close Jewish friends. But no matter what I do, I can't seem to get anyone to reveal the secret codes. What am I doing wrong???

Or maybe the Protocols really are just a crazy blood libel after all???? Tucker, are you listening???

Expand full comment
Chris Marcon's avatar

What a load of useless crap.

Expand full comment
Mick Bolton's avatar

What a well thought out and considered response. W o|---)

Expand full comment
Chris Marcon's avatar

In keeping with the spirit of the OP. It must be said without condition. It is a rambling , pedantic, psudo academic , peanut gallery , navel gazing, Ouroboros of mental masturbation.

Expand full comment
Jupplandia's avatar

It’s hard to see why you are wasting your time commenting on it then. Although without the effort of providing a single point that isn’t ad hominem, I note.

Expand full comment
Chris Marcon's avatar

If the entire OP is a giant stream of consciousness logical fallacy , then any argument refuting any part of it would be equally false . It's like arguing with a madman in a house of mirrors . Please .

Expand full comment
Chris Marcon's avatar

The entire OP is a giant stream of consciousness logical fallacy .

Expand full comment
Jupplandia's avatar

It’s sort of entertaining hearing you provide nothing after nothing. And having looked at your Substack, you have confirmed one of my random prejudices, which is that it’s nearly always the case that people who play the guitar and want everyone to know it tend to be political morons. Are you by any chance also a keen cyclist?

Expand full comment
Chris Marcon's avatar

Also I'm a military vet you miserable pos

Expand full comment
Chris Marcon's avatar

As I said . Solipsistic navel gazing hypothetic drivel. Assumptions and affirmation , one follows the next regardless of external stimuli. What is it you're really trying to say with this? It's long winded and circular . It's boring too. Ask one of your sycophants to reiterate

Expand full comment
Mick Bolton's avatar

Better.

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

Macron?

Expand full comment
Chris Marcon's avatar

Mueller ?

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

nein

Expand full comment