The New York Times is by no means an ‘anti-war’ newspaper. In the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it lent credibility to fabricated claims about “weapons of mass destruction” (later issuing a mea culpa). And in 2013, it said that U.S. policy in Syria “may have to change now that Mr. Assad’s forces are accused of using chemical weapons.”
Which makes its latest editorial on the war in Ukraine something of a bombshell. Back in March, the Editorial Board said the world must “coalesce around the same message to Ukrainians and Russians alike: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free.” Now its stance appears to have shifted.
The Board writes, “A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal,” and if it comes to negotiations, Ukrainian leaders will have to make the “painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand.”
“Mr. Biden,” the Board writes, “should also make clear to President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people that there is a limit to how far the United States and NATO will confront Russia” because Zelensky’s decisions must be grounded in a “realistic assessment” of “how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain”.
The Board says this is “not appeasement”, but rather what governments “are duty bound to do”.
As to why regaining all the territory Russia has seized since 2014 is “not a realistic goal”, the Board notes that “Russia remains too strong, and Mr. Putin has invested too much personal prestige in the invasion to back down”.
The Board criticises U.S. officials for “bellicose statements” that “do not bring negotiations any closer”, referring to Biden’s remark that “Putin cannot remain in power” and Austin’s remark that “we want to see Russia weakened”. It also points to the “extraordinary costs and serious dangers” of escalation.
This is by far the least hawkish editorial I’ve seen in a major Anglophone newspaper since the war began. While hedging a little, the New York Times is basically saying the best way to end the war is through some kind of compromise – as people like John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky have argued all along (and as I’ve been suggesting here at the Daily Sceptic).
I have to admit: I’m genuinely surprised to see America’s ‘newspaper of record’ break ranks with the foreign policy establishment on this one, especially given the recent votes in the U.S. Congress – where every single Democrat (and the vast majority of Republicans) voted to send Ukraine another $40 billion in mostly military aid.
It’ll be interesting to see whether any other papers follow suit.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
What a disgusting little money grubber May is, someone of so little moral fibre yet so preachy.
Isn’t she a very regular church goer??
Is she a ‘goer’?
Well she did have lots of photo ops outside church but some questioned whether she actually went into the Church’s. Would she tolerate a rival preacher in the same place?
At least the Queen did actually go into the church at Balmoral.
“Follow the money”.
Never fails.
Always leads to ‘the science’ and associated philosophical gospel and religous sermonising.
I think you will find Tony B’liar will have had a similar payment structure. All his so called “Speech” fundings will be in US dollars via payment’s by the back door for services rendered re Iraq. All his fees will be paid via a group of private companies that are used for the sole purpose of legitimatising payments paid by the US government. Ditto all the other HMG ministers over the years, for services rendered to the USA.
Well at least Tony Blair has admitted whatever the UK does regarding Net Zero, it will have no effect on global climate. How bizarre that a politician whose government gave us the climate change act in 2008, now admits that it is a sham. ——-Why doesn’t he just go the whole hog and admit is was never anything to do with the climate. It is pure eco socialism.
Fascinating
All of this fails to pass the smell test .The troughers present and past in the countries parliament have created a dark haze and stench of corruption fed by their Globalist paymasters .
The law needs changing such that anything that affects UK citizens that is driven by any supranational/ unaccountable ie non UK organisation must be voted on via referendum .
Current example being WHO pandemic policy plus of course the clusterfuck that Nett Zero is now and will be infuture ..
The UN is the devil here ..
The UN is the puppet cross of the devil.
Its just that its too late. ——The whole political establishment, the whole of the media, except maybe a bit of Fox or GB News (at times) and Trump are in on this top down control of the worlds wealth and resources by the global government in waiting at the UN. You and I and all the other readers here can rant all we want but no one is listening. The vast majority tune in at 6 pm to mainstream for their news and are brainwashed daily by climate propaganda and the idea of a climate crisis has become entrenched in their brain.
Not only this, but the various ‘publishing deals’ for politicians’ memoirs. Money laundering bribes, that’s what it is.
Needs a thorough investigation, trials and imprisonment.
Not forgetting David Milliband’s cushty NY based ‘charity’ directorship, Nick Clegg’s cushty role at Meta/Facebook and then there is David Cameron’s decision to make his personal company a private entity rather than a PLC once he left parliament, therefore negating the requirement to publish his accounts.
Related but separate, the rumours of Tony Blair becoming head of the WEF post Schwab are alarming…yet also I suspect the step too far that will blow the lid of this thing.
How could any Tory MP affiliate themselves to the WEF with him in charge? traitors to their party and country.
“How could any Tory MP affiliate themselves to the WEF with him in charge?”
Quite easily. The party of the ‘heir to Blair’ will have no difficulty at all.
And what are to think of the suckers who vote for them? They are dangerous people too.
Career politicians – that’s most of them – of course regard Office as an apprenticeship and where they can showcase themselves with a view to board directorships, consultancy work, speaking tours, sales of their memoirs and jobs on international bodies. The real money comes after they leave behind the wreckage they have caused.
Why do you ask?
On a side note but related topic. It is worth noting how many of the side-events at the recent Labour conference where hosted by the Tony B IFGC. It’s clear who is pulling the Labour party strings.
The speech circuit is the current Western equivalent of African or Arabian suitcases with cash.
Nothing else.
We are equally corrupt, but they are at least more honest than us.
Two further thoughts:
could her screw up of Brexit be another cause of her otherwise incredible earnings. There must be many Remainers who admire that.
could the devil himself be the ringmaster who proposes policies to be followed and procures the payments later. Blair, of course would be the first suspect.
someone in politics will know the answer.
Blatant money laundering. ‘Their’ puppet has danced to ‘their’ tune and must now be amply rewarded but inconspicuously so. Speaking engagements are clearly a good ploy for this but upon scrutiny who on earth would pay someone without a f**king clue about anything so much money? I mean what can Theresa May possibly have to say about anything. She’s got not a single creative idea in her head. It’s a game. Anyone believing that May gets paid for her thoughts on anything is seriously deluded.
When Bliar launched himself on the “speaking circuit” I said much the same. Why would anyone pay money to listen to a thieving, treasonous toe-rag like Bliar.
Money laundering as payment for services delivered.
This is the kind of great investigatory reporting that is now completely missing from the corporate media. That in itself deserves some investigation too.
Leaflet – Your Taxes Enrich Wind And Solar Companies
And failed politicians
How’s that called when politicians take money from shady foreign entities for implementing policies which go against the good of their own country? Ok, nowadays, it’s called Acting for the greater good but how used it to be called?
Its about time the public realised that our politicians are only answerable to external commercial interests.
Obsborne as Chancellor made sure we racked up a huge national debt which is not in our interests but it is in the interests of external UK and foreign commercial concerns.
The words ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ come to mind.
And Cameron helped him do it.
It is far worse than people realise for example the dreadful way in which retired wind turbines are disposed of. Non-biodegradable plastics of huge proprtions just hidden or buried in the ground. If you really understood the situation with nuclear waste. It is crazy when you look at the big picture and what they are doing to it whilst pretending to do the opposite. You have to understand the level of capture. If you don’t then just try to carry on for the next few years. Trust me you won’t last the next six months this is a different time.
Good God! It’s all about the money. Not a principle in sight. Disgraceful.
Like the EU awarding…ahem…”prizes”. No doubt “grants” from philanthropic foundations serve a similar purpose. Who pays the piper…
It reminds me of the Robin Williams quote
Politicians should wear Sponsor jackets like NASCAR drivers so we know who owns them.
Mummy, where do politicians come from?
Well darling, when a clown and a serial killer love each other very much …..”
The article says “May tied the country to net zero”. ——-What? Do all other politicians not have an opinion then? They had the chance to vote on this amendment and none of them voted against it. It was simply waved through. ——-But ok so most policies you would think are put in place because they will have an effect on something , or at least that is the intention. But Net Zero will have no effect on global climate. So why do it? ——–The answer to that question is crucial and it is this. ————It isn’t about the climate, and it never was.
And let us not forget that all of these payments would be tax deductible. So much of these payments will be funded by your tax money. What a scam these elites have rigged up. Me, me, me, me, me seems to be the theme! Just need to add some music.
My grannie (from Huddersfield) said there was no way I could make a car out of spaghetti. You should have seen her face when I drove past her.