At Davos, NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg said we shouldn't sacrifice “long-term security needs” for “short-term economic interests”, citing trade with Russia and China. But this framing is too simplistic.
George W. Bush can't catch a break. In the same week as his "brutal invasion" gaffe, he fell victim to Russian pranksters. In a prank phone call, Bush appears to admit the US broke its promise not to expand NATO.
In a speech yesterday, former president George W. Bush referred to "the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine." This gaffe highlights an important point.
In this week's London Calling, the topics are the WHO pandemic treaty, the woke Ninjas who risked life and limb to take on... middle-aged feminists and my excitement about seeing Top Gun: Maverick.
If Russia's invasion of Ukraine was prompted by NATO's eastward expansion, as some Putin apologists argue, why has the official reaction to Finland's NATO application been so muted?
In April, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO told the New York Times: "We are using the Ukrainians as our proxy forces". Since then, several US politicians have confirmed this *is* a proxy war.
In a recent podcast interview with the New York Times, Philip Breedlove – former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO – said, "I think we are in a proxy war with Russia. We are using the Ukrainians as our proxy forces."
The problem with arguing we shouldn't arm a country in case it prolongs a war is that it is an aggressors’ charter, blaming defenders for hurting their own people by not surrendering sooner.
If we lived in a world without nuclear weapons, we could enter the war and probably achieve a decisive victory over Russia. But that *isn’t* the world we live in. And we have to make plans based on reality.
Back in 2015, John Mearsheimer, said: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked". Quite prophetic, no? But now students are trying to cancel him.
