I’ve been hearing that for 25 years now. Not from fringe actors, from regular rank and file conservatives. It ain’t likely to happen, but it kind of sucks to try to have a conversation with people who apparently can’t wait to shoot me.
russell, I am truly shocked that anyone, much less multiple rank and file conservatives, have said anything like that to you. I'm actually dumfounded. I have never, ever heard anything like that directed at me (or anyone I know) and it must be truly painful and troubling to hear. I vehemently reject anyone who says anything like that, conservative or not. If I hadn't read so much of what you have written, and didn't know where your heart is (I do, and it's good), I frankly wouldn't believe you. But I do.
Honestly, I need to step back and let that sink in. It hurts me to hear that. I am so sorry. If I have said anything to you, or that would lead anyone here to think I would associate with anything like that, I sincerely apologize.
I would define the specific type of "dog pile" that I see here as follows: any conservative pushing back a bit or pointing out factors others may not have considered gets dumped on him or her not only having to respond to many community members here (which is expected), but also the burden of defending arguments that were never made (or at least were never intended to be made). More curiosity (on my part too) would be helpful.
lj: It’s quite spectacular to see a conservative feel that this process can be blown off when a new president comes in.
I'm not arguing that at all. I'm simply pointing out that if a particular jurisdiction refuses to cooperate on ICE detainer requests and someone is released, ICE has to go get them. Simple as that. My understanding is that ICE is in the field in Minneapolis more because of the lack of cooperation in Hennepin County. Michael Cain raises some good points on cooperation in general, but my understanding is those reasons are not why Hennepin County doesn't honor ICE detainers.
. . .if someone comes to ObWi and posts MAGA and Trump exculpating arguments (eg that the Minneapolis protesters will be largely to blame if as a result of their actions Trump invokes the Insurrection Act) . . .
I didn't argue that. If I was unclear, let me clear that up now. My point was that defunding ICE might give Trump an argument in favor of invoking the Act. I'm not advocating either the defunding or the invocation of the Act at all. Nor am I exculpating anyone. I have commented on how ICE can and should improve. I also think the actions of the protestors have bearing on the issue. If the protestors were just protesting instead of actively, intentionally, and in an organized way obstructing, there would be no argument for invocation of the Act. Is that "blaming" them? I don't think so. I'm just pointing out what they are doing.
wj: Gotcha on the clarification. I understand now.
Judging from the videos of those killings, I’d say a first degree (or whatever the term is in Minnesota) murder charge would be straightforward.
I don't think it is anywhere as straightforward as you might think. I could be wrong. To be clear: I'm not arguing the shootings were justified. What I have seen troubles me greatly. I'll await the full review.
Thanks for recognizing the "dog pile" phenomena. I think I answered the choice of Minneapolis (vs. Minnesota writ large). And I suspect it being in Gov. Walz' back yard was a plus for Trump.
nous:
I lot there. I didn't ignore it. I'm not convinced Antifa has as little involvement as you say. I note that Antifa has targeted ICE:
Basically, the predominance of the right wing in US political violence is a pretty well-established fact.
I thought you might be focusing on the homicidal crazies. IMO, you paint with way to broad a brush. While I acknowledge the point, they are outliers. The right roundly condemned Timothy McVeigh, for example. The crazies do not enjoy widespread support by either left or right. I almost put all of them in the same basket and I think it does a disservice to attribute the nut jobs and terrorists to the mainstream left or right.
The left commits far more assaults, property damage, riots more, etc in the name of political issues. Protests leaning into riot/violence is a familiar pattern since 2020. In addition, the left has blocked access to conservative speakers at college, often resorting to intimidation or violence. The left has occupied college campuses and aligned with terrorists using violence or threats thereof to intimidate Jewish students. Antisemitism has been mainstreamed. The cheers from mainstreamers on the left following the Trump assassination attempts and the Charlie Kirk shooting are troubling.
The right is far from perfect, but I note the pushback to, for example, Carlson’s interview with Fuentes and Kevin Roberts’ defense of that. We know we have some problems and are pushing back against it. Maybe I’m just not privy to the same thing happening on the left?
Hsh: It’s interesting that under the Obama administration there were so many deportations . . .
I think it is as simple as he’s a Democrat and his predecessor didn’t let in 10-20 million illegal immigrants in 4 years. Obama had more cooperation with local law enforcement. I agree that it is very interesting. Obama did some fancy foot work on the statistic, though, reporting turnaways at the border as deportations to look tougher that he was. The exact same guy in Minnesota running things now was decorated under Obama (Tom Homan). While the ALCU complained that the border patrol was “monstruous” under Obama and there were some protests, I think the pushback was muted simply because he was on the same team.
Not getting involved isn’t the same as obstructing (or even merely objecting).
True, but this isn’t going to the beach. If someone is subject to deportation and has a dangerous criminal record, why would an agency pledged to keeping the public safe not want that person removed? I do understand some petty crimes not being passed on. But I simply don’t get the more serious ones. Without cooperation, ICE has to go find the person. And it’s pretty hard to do that with what I’m seeing.
Seriously? I doubt you will find a single official, in any sanctuary city or county or state, who would have any problem at all at all with those convicted of serious crimes being picked up and deported.
I am at a loss here. This is a central issue. Minnesota DOC (state prisons) was cooperating and honoring ICE detainers once a criminal’s sentence is done. Some counties and cities (e.g. Hennepin County and Minneapolis) were not. They release them into the public sphere rather than cooperate. Now the AG (Keith Ellison) doubled down, issuing an opinion that honoring detainers violates Minnesota law, even when there is an agreement with the feds (287(g) agreements). I’m not clear if the DOC’s cooperation will continue. If I’m wrong, I’m all ears. But Hennepin County ignored 2,000 detainers since Trump took office:
The issue isn’t just convicted. Those that have been arrested are a problem too. I get that a city, county or state would want to see justice for the victims and prosecute illegal aliens who commit serious crimes. But there is no good reason an illegal alien credibly accused of serious crimes should be let loose without coordination with the feds, IMO. Look at German Llangari, the illegal alien that killed Victoria Harwell in the twin cities (vehicular homicide). ICE issued a detainer and Minneapolis released him twice, ignoring the detainer. He was a fugitive after the first release. ICE had to track him down without cooperation and did so and deported him. If Minneapolis would cooperate, Minneapolis could have had its conviction, Llangari would have paid his price, and then he would have been deported. Minneapolis leaves ICE little choice.
** Far more than the number (citizens and non-citizens alike) who have simply been murdered.
I don’t know if anyone can be “simply murdered.” And your comment implies some sort of comparison between a citizen being wrongfully detained by ICE and a citizen being murdered by an illegal alien. I reject that. Both are bad, but murder is beyond horrible.
I read Pro Publica’s article on citizen detention/arrest several months ago. I just glanced at it again. More than 170 detentions of citizens, 20 for more than a day in 2025. ICE arrested something like 350,000 in 2025. It’s not clear if the 150 detained were detained for any length of time. I assume that the bulk were detained during protests that went too far (e.g. laying hands on officers or throwing rocks at them). I think there have been 26 confirmed murders of citizens or legal residents by illegal aliens if we are going to compare. I looked at several of the citizen detentions back then (the time of the article) and I found, again, situations that were not black and white. The most sympathetic (to me) was the young vet, George Retes. Likeable guy. Security guard at a marijuana farm. I saw the video. He drove right up to a line of ICE officers on the highway right when they were about to take action against a group of protesters who were obstructing them. I think I believe George that he was late to work, but be late and drive around! George was not reasonable driving right up to them and expecting ICE officers to call time out in a volatile situation to address his need to get to work on time. I do have an issue with the lack of phone call and 3-day detention, however. Obviously.
russell: I appreciate your response. Sorry for my delayed response (day job). I find myself aligned with your manifesto. Thanks for sharing.
I understood "freaks" to refer to the rank and file, not their leaders. I see I was wrong. I shouldn't assume. I understand calling political figures freaks, simply because they are public targets. They signed up for it.
My view on ICE is tempered by what ICE is dealing with in the streets.
I find the organized and calculated obstruction tactics coupled with the apparent involvement of socialist organizations and other far left groups (and maybe even local politicians) troubling because it tends to indicate there is much more going on here than opposition to immigration policy. The violence from the "protestors" is intended, IMO, to provoke. Yes, ICE shouldn't take the bait and they sometimes do and that is a problem. I see the "protests" at least in part a continuation of the Antifa-led protests in 2020 that really weren’t much about George Floyd after the first several days. I don’t share your view on the balance of violence in the past years, and curious why you see it that way.
Tony P.: I have issues with the 4th Amendment violations, quotas, etc. The shootings are tragic. The organized obstruction and doxxing makes a dangerous job that much harder. That’s why I don’t see things as black and white. I have no problem with protest. This is beyond protest for the most part.
How to improve? I’d make body cameras and badge numbers mandatory for accountability purposes for starters. There are some situations where going undercover or safety mandate something else, but make it the exception. And more de-escalation training. My overall impression is that what I see appears less professional in a lot of situations than what I see with well-trained police forces, but I’m seeing it through the lens of protestors actively obstructing. ICE’s mission isn’t really crowd control (and it shows). Contrast that with the Maple Grove PD’s response when the rioters went after Greg Bovino’s hotel. But note how many officers it took to control those protestors.
I would also encourage local cooperation, something that has been actively discouraged by Walz and Frey. St. Paul Police Fed. Pres. Mark Ross called for local cooperation, even claiming it would have prevented the shooting deaths: https://nypost.com/2026/01/28/us-news/police-union-head-slams-minn-as-gov-walz-agrees-to-have-top-cop-work-with-border-czar/
What do you see being accomplished by giving Trump what he asks for?
My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I'm doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear: that he will militarize the response. Insurrection Act, Alien Enemies Act, etc. Without ICE, you'd have to take agents from the border and there is a limit to that. Defund DHS completely, you lose the Border Patrol (and TSA and the Secret Service too). Trump, OTOH, is still Commander in Chief. He can call up the guard or maybe even the Arctic Angels.
Trump wants state and local cooperation in rounding up the illegal aliens, especially those convicted or charged with serious crimes. Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law. Those that think the obstruction isn't part of and the cause of much of the violence (and intentionally so) are naive IMO.
Take the resistance far enough and what you end up with may not what you bargained for. Or maybe some are bargaining for that response in search of the revolution.
lj: my bad. I meant to put a divider there. Still, I thought (and think) the context is obvious and I wasn't being disrespectful. I will use my best MLA/Bluebook from here on out.
So it’s a chance (whether large or tiny) of accomplishing something vs no chance at all. Easy choice.
But do it anyway. Do whatever is available.
That is asking Trump to deploy the military for immigration enforcement without actually asking him, IMO. Or is that the point? Push escalation until the revolution?
I give up. I can't keep up with the straw men. Frex:
However, where bc is concerned, I do think his Sweet Summer Child (SSC) status is utterly confirmed by any suggestion that Trump’s approach to this or any other issue is anything to do with mastery of the art of the deal.
What did I actually say about Trump's negotiation strategy (that I shorthanded "Art of the Deal")?
"Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here."
Good grief people. Shorter me:
1) Greenland is strategically very important whatever Trump says. (sidenote, wjca, you could be right, but what I read says the rare earth situation is much more important national security wise, and Greenland is important. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1802/a/pp1802a.pdf)
2) Trump is going about it stupidly re Greenland. My read is he is setting up the next negotiations, or prompting the EU to take further action, but I could be wrong.
3) It's never right, absent an imminent threat (e.g. WWII) to occupy over objection. Or to threaten to. And no, I don't think we buy Greenland. Get a minerals deal. Satisfy the Inuit (that will be hard).
4) I'm glad Maduro is gone, the operation was done amazingly well, but I'm really worried about the future of Venezuela.
I could go on, but I don't have the time or inclination.
P.S. Tony P, touche. P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation.
And that European problem became a world war.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are . . .
Using the word ‘historically’ is pretty interesting, especially since Denmark is one of the top bilateral donors to Ukraine . . .
Actions speak louder than words (well, unless its Trump, lol). Yes, Europe is finally getting serious and starting to put its money where its mouth is, rather than relying on the US taxpayers. It's nice to see. And yes, Denmark is one of the top donors to Ukraine. I think it might actually be right at the top as a percentage of GDP. "Historically", however, meaning as recently as 2023, Denmark was below the NATO 2% standard. And a low of 1.11% in 2015. Slid below 2% in 1990 down to that low in 2015. So yes, historically.
Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the “McKinney Trap” . . .
In my own way, I may consider many here to be a different version of summer children on some issues, but I don't think anyone actually supports the CCP. Unless you voted for Bernie, Zohran, Waltz et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
It’s almost as if you haven’t been observing the Trump administration in action,
I've been observing the results achieved, the rhetoric and the resistance. IMO, many are falling for the rhetoric. If this isn't prodding, it's the Art of the Deal, trying to get a better bargaining position IMO for a minerals deal. Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here. We shall see.
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland?
Denmark tried to get the US to leave after WWII, leading to the 1951 treaty (US refused to leave due to the Soviet threat). But I think this is more about rare earths, strategic positioning and what it is going to cost to do what is necessary to keep China and Russia at bay. And a concern that Greenland has, I understand, toyed with deals involving the Chinese in infrastructure and mining. Denmark has vetoed the projects. With the Chinese trying to monopolize rare earths, having the Chinese involved in mining is obviously a huge concern, and one that could be dealt with by getting a minerals agreement with the US. It makes sense to have some sort of economic deal to offset US defense costs. Threats of invasion are unhelpful, to say the least.
russell: I did not say they did. I specifically support moves by the EU and Denmark to take global security vis-a-vis Greenland seriously that take any sort of unilateral action off the table.
lj: most of them are talking about the precedent of Panama and Noriega . . .
If memory serves, Noriega tried every argument that Maduro might try and failed as far as the extradition is concerned in his criminal case. Things don't look great for him from a criminal law perspective. Of course separation of powers, international law and foreign policy concerns are another matter.
I’m hoping bc will tell us what her reasoning is (or will be) about the menacing of Greenland (or its takeover), given her extraordinary comments about the US occupation in WW2, bearing in mind for example that Greenland has been Danish longer than the United States has existed.
Well, I'm a guy, but thanks for not assuming. And while I am reluctant to respond to what appears to be another litmus test of some sort, I'll bite.
I think the comments by both Trump and Miller are stupid, disrespectful and unnecessary. It threatens NATO. Prodding NATO members to pay their fair share is one thing. This is entirely another. Or is it?
Maybe it's prodding to wake Denmark and the EU up. There is a geopolitical reality that Denmark's comments seem to indicate it isn't really grasping the threat, IMO. I hear about Greenlander self-determination but precious little about the strategic threat posed by the Russians and Chinese and what I understand is an inadequate response by Greenland specifically and Denmark and the EU in general. As I understand it, Greenland's autonomy has led to more Chinese involvement than the US wants (and in fairness, Denmark seems to be concerned too). China is claiming to be a "near arctic state" and is expanding its influence in places like Greenland (and the waters off of Alaska). The Chinese want access to the rare earth minerals in Greenland and access to shipping lanes and have signaled they want more. Trump has made it clear that Greenland's location and rare earths are a national security concern. Because of the strategic importance and threat to the US, the US is right to be very concerned about any Chinese or Russian presence in or near Greenland.
I don't see my comments about WWII and Greenland as extraordinary. The question was whether the GRU letter prompted Trump's comments on Greenland. I wasn't using WWII as an excuse to annex Greenland.
That being said, when I hear "Danish longer than the United States has existed," that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily. Could that be the case in the future? It doesn't need to be if the situation could be dealt with by agreement now. And maybe it has been to a large extent in terms of US military access? Denmark signed an agreement last July that had been sitting on its desk since 2023 (drafted under Biden). Why did it take so long? Why is that not enough? Agreement here:
Before, the US had to coordinate and it appears Denmark may not have been all that nimble in responding. But maybe this is entirely about giving China access and threatening security and not taking the threat (and the Russians in the Arctic) seriously. If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don't. And the Chinese have tried in Greenland (airport and harbor).
Yes, Denmark's claim to Greenland deserves respect. So does the fact that the US tends to pay the bill when things get really tough. Denmark has historically been way behind on NATO commitments. Trump is right to push NATO countries into their fair share (Canada, that means you). You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland. And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it. It seems to be working. Interesting article here from an EU perspective that covers what EU should do (and I largely agree with the suggestions).
lj: I don't know that I see everything as an extension of what has come before, but I do see similarities. This is a lot like Noriega, but with much bigger risks and incentives. I hope the end result is a lot like Panama.
What acts of terrorism has he committed? The charges are he conspired to financially support terrorist organizations, namely FARC, FARC-EP, Segunda Marquetalia, ELN, TdA, the Sinaloa Cartel and CDN.
Why to a lesser extent? Only because of my sense that the Venezuelan people are largely unified in wanting something different, Venezuela has an educated population, they had a successful economy not all that far in the past and the risks are less from outside groups than they were in Libya for example.
It looks (so far) that the plan is to keep the regime sans Maduro in place, at least temporarily, to keep stability, using pressure to keep the regime/Rodriguez in line. There are rumors of a secret agreement with Rodriguez. There are questions whether she could deliver if there is. Opening up oil is a good idea if the government is going to lose drug revenue and get the economy going again. If the plan includes pressure for a free and fair election in the immediate to near future, and it actually happens, and there is a peaceful transition of power, that would obviously be amazing. I have no way of assessing whether an approach like this will work. It is a completely different look than boots on the ground, putting Machado or Gonzalez in power by force. It might be brilliant. It could be incredibly stupid. I have a hard time keeping a Chavista in power, but the problems with the alternative are obvious. Let's hope we end up with a free Venezuela with a duly elected leader in six months or so.
The question was whether Trump got the idea to "purchase Greenland" from the GRU letter, not whether there is justification for simply taking it over. That's the context of my response. As a 3rd generation Alaskan (currently living outside my home state), I'd point out that William Seward tried to buy Greenland (and Iceland too). At one point he wanted to bring Canada into the US. So maybe Trump got both ideas from Seward? There were other attempts in the 20th century, (including Truman, I believe) and the US refused to leave after WWII due to the Cold War. But I don't support taking over Greenland by force over the Denmark's objection.
TP: As I recall, I had mixed feelings about Libya, but more practical than whether or not the President had the authority. It's always about "what happens next", right? I have similar feelings about Venezuela, but to a lesser extent. But I am concerned about not leaving the Venezuelans worse off due to a power vacuum than before. I don't like how Trump is talking about Machado nor do I like leaving the illegitimate VP in power. I am glad that Venezuela has a fighting chance to be free.
Re Greenland, I'm confused. That GRU letter is dated October 23, 2019, right? And addressed to Cotton? Cotton had already been advocating for the US to purchase Greenland in August before that letter:
And as Cotton notes in his op ed, Trump had expressed interest to purchase Greenland before the op ed. So how exactly did the fake letter give Trump the idea? Am I missing something?
As Fiona Hill testified, the Russians like to disrupt. That's all this letter was.
This ignores the testimony of Fiona Hill during the hearings for Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.
Her testimony was not that the Trump Administration was actually considering a Ukraine/Venezuela swap, but to the contrary. She was charged with telling the Russians to (her words) "knock this off." And she testified that the Russians were floating this in the press, not directly to the administration. Nowhere (that I saw) does it indicate Trump was actually thinking about the swap.
I don't disagree that Fiona Hill seems like an impressive person. Citing her testimony to say "Trump got the idea from the Russians" has no basis in fact.
According to former ambassador Ken Fairfax on BSKY, the Russians pulled their people ten days before the US op. Make of that what you will.
It was reported before Christmas that the Russians were pulling their people, but I remember it being diplomats mostly. And there was plenty of saber-rattling by Trump, not to mention the buildup of force. They had already pulled a lot of military personnel earlier, from what I remember, but I always thought that was because of Ukraine. Still, they didn't pull the air defense systems they sold to Maduro. I'm sure the nations relying on Russian air defense are making of that what they will. See here:
There hasn’t even been any sign of a Congressional resolution
Does 21 USC 960a count? I mean, Maduro is a narcoterrorist and was illegally importing cocaine. Even Biden agreed that he was a threat to the US, raising the reward for Maduro's capture to $25M. (query: Does Trump get that reward now?).
Harmut's comment was snark, but I'm being serious: if you have a de facto head of state that is illegitimate, also a narcoterrorist, no extradition treaty, refuses to stop drug trafficking after warning, is very badly dressed, etc., does extraditing by force require independent Congressional approval? If this was some prolonged military action, I get it. This was surgical (so far).
If I recall what I’ve seen this morning correctly, the indictment that is the basis for the arrest warrant says “fully automatic firearms”.
From what I read in the indictment (superseding from 2020; I think they are basically the same), the "full auto" counts are dependent on counts 1 and 2 (narcoterrorism and importation of cocaine). So it's not like the grounds are just "you have machine guns."
the galloping norm-crushing
I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think. On top of the drugs, the Chinese, Russian, Cuban and Iranian ties, 8 million people having left (more than left Syria), and the elections give ample reason to want Maduro gone. Not that "wanting him gone" is justification for a forced extradition, but there is much more going on here.
Over at BJ, Adam Silverman is reminding everyone that both the Greenland nonsense and the Venezuela idea were planted by the GRU.
Really? The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine. And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
That being said, time will tell. It's what happens now that gives me more concern. Venezolanos are celebrating but cautious about what comes next too.
China and Russia are delighted, I presume, about the current events. It’s exactly what they need for their own propaganda.
Sure, for their own, internal propaganda. But from a strategic standpoint, the US action should counter not only China and Russia's strategic aims in Venezuela, but Iran's and Cuba's too. The success of the mission in light of Russian air defense has to be taken into account. If this ends up toppling the Cuban or Iranian government by domino effect, who is going to cry? Shoot, it already caused the illustrious Gov. Waltz to stop his reelection campaign, lol.
I don't know re authorship. I do know there really isn't an antidote to such a terrible comment. James Woods' heartfelt tribute to Rob Reiner is, however, a start.
Disclaimer: I know it's Fox News, something I don't watch. This was linked to on a blog I read and is well worth the listen, IMO. I do give credit to Watters getting out of the way (mostly) and letting Woods express himself.
She doesn't talk about China much, but the impact on Taiwan of taking her win-win strategy would be overwhelmingly positive.
That being said, I don't have much hope that this will happen. Yes, what little hope I do have is pinned on my unlikely theory that Trump is trying to bring the EU/UK fully online to have a united front, Witkoff's bumblings notwithstanding.
How would that embolden Putin? My assumption would be the opposite.
Sorry, that was not clear. I meant if the US stepped back and Europe and UK stepped up, it would nonetheless embolden him. I suppose if PURL were still on the table, it would work for a while, especially if the US continued to supply intelligence. But Putin knows Europe and the UK cannot sustain the delivery of materials by themselves, at least not at this point. IMO, a US pull back in any form will embolden Putin, regardless of how the EU/UK respond.
I'm troubled by the purported peace proposal (I also note that since I started to write this, Trump is backing away from it). I want to see Ukraine free and prosperous and as intact as possible with a security guarantee (as the last one didn't work). This war is terrible and needs to end. And it needs to end in such a way as it doesn't happen again down the road as happened after Crimea. In a perfect world, Russia would be out of Ukraine. It's not a perfect world.
I can't tell whether or not Ukraine is on the brink. Certainly there is a conscription problem. If US support were to end, and the Europeans not step up, it would be a disaster. Even if the EU and UK did step up, it would be hard and embolden Putin and drag this debacle out even longer.
My take on Trump is to try to see the play and not focus on the particulars. One possibility: Trump is trying to get the Europeans to truly step up. Trump successfully got member nations to pay their fair share to NATO (well, collectively at least). The pause in US support brought Europe in even more. But despite the implementation by NATO of PURL (launched by Gen. Rutte and Trump) to fund the acquisition of ready to use weapons in US stockpiles for Ukraine, total military aid from Europe declined 43 percent in July and August of this year (humanitarian and financial support remained steady). I think that is the latest data. With the plan, the EU and the UK raced to take part in high-level talks and are voicing ever stronger support for Ukraine. I wonder if this really has nothing to do with appeasing Putin but lighting a fire under the Europeans (yet again)? It is their backyard, after all. And while they have stepped up, it doesn't make up for decades of underfunding the military and building a (mostly former) dependence on Russian gas. Europe isn't in a great position to take up the slack. And it should be.
Another reasonable take here: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-expert-conversation-separating-signal-from-noise-in-trumps-ukraine-peace-plan/
Hoping the Europeans really step in and Trump drops the hammer (e.g. Tomahawks). But I have my doubts on both.
On “A little language practice”
Not a bad speech for a socialist economist. Listening to the lisp was good for my Spanish too. He lost me here:
La pregunta, en cambio, es si estamos o no del lado de la legalidad internacional y, por tanto, de la paz . . .
Pero al mismo tiempo rechazamos este conflicto y pedimos una solución diplomática y política.
IMHO, si, son ingenuous. Time will tell.
On “Moral insanity”
I’ve been hearing that for 25 years now. Not from fringe actors, from regular rank and file conservatives. It ain’t likely to happen, but it kind of sucks to try to have a conversation with people who apparently can’t wait to shoot me.
russell, I am truly shocked that anyone, much less multiple rank and file conservatives, have said anything like that to you. I'm actually dumfounded. I have never, ever heard anything like that directed at me (or anyone I know) and it must be truly painful and troubling to hear. I vehemently reject anyone who says anything like that, conservative or not. If I hadn't read so much of what you have written, and didn't know where your heart is (I do, and it's good), I frankly wouldn't believe you. But I do.
Honestly, I need to step back and let that sink in. It hurts me to hear that. I am so sorry. If I have said anything to you, or that would lead anyone here to think I would associate with anything like that, I sincerely apologize.
"
I would define the specific type of "dog pile" that I see here as follows: any conservative pushing back a bit or pointing out factors others may not have considered gets dumped on him or her not only having to respond to many community members here (which is expected), but also the burden of defending arguments that were never made (or at least were never intended to be made). More curiosity (on my part too) would be helpful.
lj: It’s quite spectacular to see a conservative feel that this process can be blown off when a new president comes in.
I'm not arguing that at all. I'm simply pointing out that if a particular jurisdiction refuses to cooperate on ICE detainer requests and someone is released, ICE has to go get them. Simple as that. My understanding is that ICE is in the field in Minneapolis more because of the lack of cooperation in Hennepin County. Michael Cain raises some good points on cooperation in general, but my understanding is those reasons are not why Hennepin County doesn't honor ICE detainers.
. . .if someone comes to ObWi and posts MAGA and Trump exculpating arguments (eg that the Minneapolis protesters will be largely to blame if as a result of their actions Trump invokes the Insurrection Act) . . .
I didn't argue that. If I was unclear, let me clear that up now. My point was that defunding ICE might give Trump an argument in favor of invoking the Act. I'm not advocating either the defunding or the invocation of the Act at all. Nor am I exculpating anyone. I have commented on how ICE can and should improve. I also think the actions of the protestors have bearing on the issue. If the protestors were just protesting instead of actively, intentionally, and in an organized way obstructing, there would be no argument for invocation of the Act. Is that "blaming" them? I don't think so. I'm just pointing out what they are doing.
wj: Gotcha on the clarification. I understand now.
Judging from the videos of those killings, I’d say a first degree (or whatever the term is in Minnesota) murder charge would be straightforward.
I don't think it is anywhere as straightforward as you might think. I could be wrong. To be clear: I'm not arguing the shootings were justified. What I have seen troubles me greatly. I'll await the full review.
"
lj:
Thanks for recognizing the "dog pile" phenomena. I think I answered the choice of Minneapolis (vs. Minnesota writ large). And I suspect it being in Gov. Walz' back yard was a plus for Trump.
nous:
I lot there. I didn't ignore it. I'm not convinced Antifa has as little involvement as you say. I note that Antifa has targeted ICE:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/antifa-cell-members-indicted-prairieland-shooting
I also think these protests are more astroturfed than you allow. There is some interesting info out there on funding. Time will tell.
"
russell:
Basically, the predominance of the right wing in US political violence is a pretty well-established fact.
I thought you might be focusing on the homicidal crazies. IMO, you paint with way to broad a brush. While I acknowledge the point, they are outliers. The right roundly condemned Timothy McVeigh, for example. The crazies do not enjoy widespread support by either left or right. I almost put all of them in the same basket and I think it does a disservice to attribute the nut jobs and terrorists to the mainstream left or right.
The left commits far more assaults, property damage, riots more, etc in the name of political issues. Protests leaning into riot/violence is a familiar pattern since 2020. In addition, the left has blocked access to conservative speakers at college, often resorting to intimidation or violence. The left has occupied college campuses and aligned with terrorists using violence or threats thereof to intimidate Jewish students. Antisemitism has been mainstreamed. The cheers from mainstreamers on the left following the Trump assassination attempts and the Charlie Kirk shooting are troubling.
The right is far from perfect, but I note the pushback to, for example, Carlson’s interview with Fuentes and Kevin Roberts’ defense of that. We know we have some problems and are pushing back against it. Maybe I’m just not privy to the same thing happening on the left?
Hsh: It’s interesting that under the Obama administration there were so many deportations . . .
I think it is as simple as he’s a Democrat and his predecessor didn’t let in 10-20 million illegal immigrants in 4 years. Obama had more cooperation with local law enforcement. I agree that it is very interesting. Obama did some fancy foot work on the statistic, though, reporting turnaways at the border as deportations to look tougher that he was. The exact same guy in Minnesota running things now was decorated under Obama (Tom Homan). While the ALCU complained that the border patrol was “monstruous” under Obama and there were some protests, I think the pushback was muted simply because he was on the same team.
Not getting involved isn’t the same as obstructing (or even merely objecting).
True, but this isn’t going to the beach. If someone is subject to deportation and has a dangerous criminal record, why would an agency pledged to keeping the public safe not want that person removed? I do understand some petty crimes not being passed on. But I simply don’t get the more serious ones. Without cooperation, ICE has to go find the person. And it’s pretty hard to do that with what I’m seeing.
"
wjca:
Seriously? I doubt you will find a single official, in any sanctuary city or county or state, who would have any problem at all at all with those convicted of serious crimes being picked up and deported.
I am at a loss here. This is a central issue. Minnesota DOC (state prisons) was cooperating and honoring ICE detainers once a criminal’s sentence is done. Some counties and cities (e.g. Hennepin County and Minneapolis) were not. They release them into the public sphere rather than cooperate. Now the AG (Keith Ellison) doubled down, issuing an opinion that honoring detainers violates Minnesota law, even when there is an agreement with the feds (287(g) agreements). I’m not clear if the DOC’s cooperation will continue. If I’m wrong, I’m all ears. But Hennepin County ignored 2,000 detainers since Trump took office:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/29/us/minnesota-ice-jails-immigration-arrests.html
The issue isn’t just convicted. Those that have been arrested are a problem too. I get that a city, county or state would want to see justice for the victims and prosecute illegal aliens who commit serious crimes. But there is no good reason an illegal alien credibly accused of serious crimes should be let loose without coordination with the feds, IMO. Look at German Llangari, the illegal alien that killed Victoria Harwell in the twin cities (vehicular homicide). ICE issued a detainer and Minneapolis released him twice, ignoring the detainer. He was a fugitive after the first release. ICE had to track him down without cooperation and did so and deported him. If Minneapolis would cooperate, Minneapolis could have had its conviction, Llangari would have paid his price, and then he would have been deported. Minneapolis leaves ICE little choice.
** Far more than the number (citizens and non-citizens alike) who have simply been murdered.
I don’t know if anyone can be “simply murdered.” And your comment implies some sort of comparison between a citizen being wrongfully detained by ICE and a citizen being murdered by an illegal alien. I reject that. Both are bad, but murder is beyond horrible.
I read Pro Publica’s article on citizen detention/arrest several months ago. I just glanced at it again. More than 170 detentions of citizens, 20 for more than a day in 2025. ICE arrested something like 350,000 in 2025. It’s not clear if the 150 detained were detained for any length of time. I assume that the bulk were detained during protests that went too far (e.g. laying hands on officers or throwing rocks at them). I think there have been 26 confirmed murders of citizens or legal residents by illegal aliens if we are going to compare. I looked at several of the citizen detentions back then (the time of the article) and I found, again, situations that were not black and white. The most sympathetic (to me) was the young vet, George Retes. Likeable guy. Security guard at a marijuana farm. I saw the video. He drove right up to a line of ICE officers on the highway right when they were about to take action against a group of protesters who were obstructing them. I think I believe George that he was late to work, but be late and drive around! George was not reasonable driving right up to them and expecting ICE officers to call time out in a volatile situation to address his need to get to work on time. I do have an issue with the lack of phone call and 3-day detention, however. Obviously.
"
russell: I appreciate your response. Sorry for my delayed response (day job). I find myself aligned with your manifesto. Thanks for sharing.
I understood "freaks" to refer to the rank and file, not their leaders. I see I was wrong. I shouldn't assume. I understand calling political figures freaks, simply because they are public targets. They signed up for it.
My view on ICE is tempered by what ICE is dealing with in the streets.
I find the organized and calculated obstruction tactics coupled with the apparent involvement of socialist organizations and other far left groups (and maybe even local politicians) troubling because it tends to indicate there is much more going on here than opposition to immigration policy. The violence from the "protestors" is intended, IMO, to provoke. Yes, ICE shouldn't take the bait and they sometimes do and that is a problem. I see the "protests" at least in part a continuation of the Antifa-led protests in 2020 that really weren’t much about George Floyd after the first several days. I don’t share your view on the balance of violence in the past years, and curious why you see it that way.
Tony P.: I have issues with the 4th Amendment violations, quotas, etc. The shootings are tragic. The organized obstruction and doxxing makes a dangerous job that much harder. That’s why I don’t see things as black and white. I have no problem with protest. This is beyond protest for the most part.
How to improve? I’d make body cameras and badge numbers mandatory for accountability purposes for starters. There are some situations where going undercover or safety mandate something else, but make it the exception. And more de-escalation training. My overall impression is that what I see appears less professional in a lot of situations than what I see with well-trained police forces, but I’m seeing it through the lens of protestors actively obstructing. ICE’s mission isn’t really crowd control (and it shows). Contrast that with the Maple Grove PD’s response when the rioters went after Greg Bovino’s hotel. But note how many officers it took to control those protestors.
I would also encourage local cooperation, something that has been actively discouraged by Walz and Frey. St. Paul Police Fed. Pres. Mark Ross called for local cooperation, even claiming it would have prevented the shooting deaths: https://nypost.com/2026/01/28/us-news/police-union-head-slams-minn-as-gov-walz-agrees-to-have-top-cop-work-with-border-czar/
"
wjca:
What do you see being accomplished by giving Trump what he asks for?
My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I'm doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear: that he will militarize the response. Insurrection Act, Alien Enemies Act, etc. Without ICE, you'd have to take agents from the border and there is a limit to that. Defund DHS completely, you lose the Border Patrol (and TSA and the Secret Service too). Trump, OTOH, is still Commander in Chief. He can call up the guard or maybe even the Arctic Angels.
Trump wants state and local cooperation in rounding up the illegal aliens, especially those convicted or charged with serious crimes. Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law. Those that think the obstruction isn't part of and the cause of much of the violence (and intentionally so) are naive IMO.
Take the resistance far enough and what you end up with may not what you bargained for. Or maybe some are bargaining for that response in search of the revolution.
"
russell:
You’re a conservative, get your freaking Congress people to stop giving these freaks the space to destroy this country.
And this is where we part company on this issue. Dehumanizing either side gets us nowhere. I don't see the situation as black and white as you do.
"
lj: my bad. I meant to put a divider there. Still, I thought (and think) the context is obvious and I wasn't being disrespectful. I will use my best MLA/Bluebook from here on out.
"
So it’s a chance (whether large or tiny) of accomplishing something vs no chance at all. Easy choice.
But do it anyway. Do whatever is available.
That is asking Trump to deploy the military for immigration enforcement without actually asking him, IMO. Or is that the point? Push escalation until the revolution?
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
I give up. I can't keep up with the straw men. Frex:
However, where bc is concerned, I do think his Sweet Summer Child (SSC) status is utterly confirmed by any suggestion that Trump’s approach to this or any other issue is anything to do with mastery of the art of the deal.
What did I actually say about Trump's negotiation strategy (that I shorthanded "Art of the Deal")?
"Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here."
Good grief people. Shorter me:
1) Greenland is strategically very important whatever Trump says. (sidenote, wjca, you could be right, but what I read says the rare earth situation is much more important national security wise, and Greenland is important. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1802/a/pp1802a.pdf)
2) Trump is going about it stupidly re Greenland. My read is he is setting up the next negotiations, or prompting the EU to take further action, but I could be wrong.
3) It's never right, absent an imminent threat (e.g. WWII) to occupy over objection. Or to threaten to. And no, I don't think we buy Greenland. Get a minerals deal. Satisfy the Inuit (that will be hard).
4) I'm glad Maduro is gone, the operation was done amazingly well, but I'm really worried about the future of Venezuela.
I could go on, but I don't have the time or inclination.
P.S. Tony P, touche.
P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
"
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation.
And that European problem became a world war.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are . . .
Using the word ‘historically’ is pretty interesting, especially since Denmark is one of the top bilateral donors to Ukraine . . .
Actions speak louder than words (well, unless its Trump, lol). Yes, Europe is finally getting serious and starting to put its money where its mouth is, rather than relying on the US taxpayers. It's nice to see. And yes, Denmark is one of the top donors to Ukraine. I think it might actually be right at the top as a percentage of GDP. "Historically", however, meaning as recently as 2023, Denmark was below the NATO 2% standard. And a low of 1.11% in 2015. Slid below 2% in 1990 down to that low in 2015. So yes, historically.
Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the “McKinney Trap” . . .
In my own way, I may consider many here to be a different version of summer children on some issues, but I don't think anyone actually supports the CCP. Unless you voted for Bernie, Zohran, Waltz et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
It’s almost as if you haven’t been observing the Trump administration in action,
I've been observing the results achieved, the rhetoric and the resistance. IMO, many are falling for the rhetoric. If this isn't prodding, it's the Art of the Deal, trying to get a better bargaining position IMO for a minerals deal. Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here. We shall see.
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland?
Denmark tried to get the US to leave after WWII, leading to the 1951 treaty (US refused to leave due to the Soviet threat). But I think this is more about rare earths, strategic positioning and what it is going to cost to do what is necessary to keep China and Russia at bay. And a concern that Greenland has, I understand, toyed with deals involving the Chinese in infrastructure and mining. Denmark has vetoed the projects. With the Chinese trying to monopolize rare earths, having the Chinese involved in mining is obviously a huge concern, and one that could be dealt with by getting a minerals agreement with the US. It makes sense to have some sort of economic deal to offset US defense costs. Threats of invasion are unhelpful, to say the least.
"
russell: I did not say they did. I specifically support moves by the EU and Denmark to take global security vis-a-vis Greenland seriously that take any sort of unilateral action off the table.
"
lj: most of them are talking about the precedent of Panama and Noriega . . .
If memory serves, Noriega tried every argument that Maduro might try and failed as far as the extradition is concerned in his criminal case. Things don't look great for him from a criminal law perspective. Of course separation of powers, international law and foreign policy concerns are another matter.
I’m hoping bc will tell us what her reasoning is (or will be) about the menacing of Greenland (or its takeover), given her extraordinary comments about the US occupation in WW2, bearing in mind for example that Greenland has been Danish longer than the United States has existed.
Well, I'm a guy, but thanks for not assuming. And while I am reluctant to respond to what appears to be another litmus test of some sort, I'll bite.
I think the comments by both Trump and Miller are stupid, disrespectful and unnecessary. It threatens NATO. Prodding NATO members to pay their fair share is one thing. This is entirely another. Or is it?
Maybe it's prodding to wake Denmark and the EU up. There is a geopolitical reality that Denmark's comments seem to indicate it isn't really grasping the threat, IMO. I hear about Greenlander self-determination but precious little about the strategic threat posed by the Russians and Chinese and what I understand is an inadequate response by Greenland specifically and Denmark and the EU in general. As I understand it, Greenland's autonomy has led to more Chinese involvement than the US wants (and in fairness, Denmark seems to be concerned too). China is claiming to be a "near arctic state" and is expanding its influence in places like Greenland (and the waters off of Alaska). The Chinese want access to the rare earth minerals in Greenland and access to shipping lanes and have signaled they want more. Trump has made it clear that Greenland's location and rare earths are a national security concern. Because of the strategic importance and threat to the US, the US is right to be very concerned about any Chinese or Russian presence in or near Greenland.
I don't see my comments about WWII and Greenland as extraordinary. The question was whether the GRU letter prompted Trump's comments on Greenland. I wasn't using WWII as an excuse to annex Greenland.
That being said, when I hear "Danish longer than the United States has existed," that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily. Could that be the case in the future? It doesn't need to be if the situation could be dealt with by agreement now. And maybe it has been to a large extent in terms of US military access? Denmark signed an agreement last July that had been sitting on its desk since 2023 (drafted under Biden). Why did it take so long? Why is that not enough? Agreement here:
https://www.fmn.dk/globalassets/fmn/dokumenter/nyheder/2023/-us-denmark-dca-den-prime-english-20dec2023-.pdf
Interesting discussion about the agreement here ("we had to do it" vs. "But Trump!!"):
https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-finalizes-us-defense-deal-despite-greenland-gripes/a-73210846
Before, the US had to coordinate and it appears Denmark may not have been all that nimble in responding. But maybe this is entirely about giving China access and threatening security and not taking the threat (and the Russians in the Arctic) seriously. If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don't. And the Chinese have tried in Greenland (airport and harbor).
Yes, Denmark's claim to Greenland deserves respect. So does the fact that the US tends to pay the bill when things get really tough. Denmark has historically been way behind on NATO commitments. Trump is right to push NATO countries into their fair share (Canada, that means you). You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland. And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it. It seems to be working. Interesting article here from an EU perspective that covers what EU should do (and I largely agree with the suggestions).
https://www.epc.eu/publication/its-a-bargain-the-case-of-greenland/
"
lj: I don't know that I see everything as an extension of what has come before, but I do see similarities. This is a lot like Noriega, but with much bigger risks and incentives. I hope the end result is a lot like Panama.
What acts of terrorism has he committed? The charges are he conspired to financially support terrorist organizations, namely FARC, FARC-EP, Segunda Marquetalia, ELN, TdA, the Sinaloa Cartel and CDN.
Why to a lesser extent? Only because of my sense that the Venezuelan people are largely unified in wanting something different, Venezuela has an educated population, they had a successful economy not all that far in the past and the risks are less from outside groups than they were in Libya for example.
It looks (so far) that the plan is to keep the regime sans Maduro in place, at least temporarily, to keep stability, using pressure to keep the regime/Rodriguez in line. There are rumors of a secret agreement with Rodriguez. There are questions whether she could deliver if there is. Opening up oil is a good idea if the government is going to lose drug revenue and get the economy going again. If the plan includes pressure for a free and fair election in the immediate to near future, and it actually happens, and there is a peaceful transition of power, that would obviously be amazing. I have no way of assessing whether an approach like this will work. It is a completely different look than boots on the ground, putting Machado or Gonzalez in power by force. It might be brilliant. It could be incredibly stupid. I have a hard time keeping a Chavista in power, but the problems with the alternative are obvious. Let's hope we end up with a free Venezuela with a duly elected leader in six months or so.
"
wjca:
The question was whether Trump got the idea to "purchase Greenland" from the GRU letter, not whether there is justification for simply taking it over. That's the context of my response. As a 3rd generation Alaskan (currently living outside my home state), I'd point out that William Seward tried to buy Greenland (and Iceland too). At one point he wanted to bring Canada into the US. So maybe Trump got both ideas from Seward? There were other attempts in the 20th century, (including Truman, I believe) and the US refused to leave after WWII due to the Cold War. But I don't support taking over Greenland by force over the Denmark's objection.
TP: As I recall, I had mixed feelings about Libya, but more practical than whether or not the President had the authority. It's always about "what happens next", right? I have similar feelings about Venezuela, but to a lesser extent. But I am concerned about not leaving the Venezuelans worse off due to a power vacuum than before. I don't like how Trump is talking about Machado nor do I like leaving the illegitimate VP in power. I am glad that Venezuela has a fighting chance to be free.
"
Re Greenland, I'm confused. That GRU letter is dated October 23, 2019, right? And addressed to Cotton? Cotton had already been advocating for the US to purchase Greenland in August before that letter:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/opinion/politics/greenland-trump.html
And as Cotton notes in his op ed, Trump had expressed interest to purchase Greenland before the op ed. So how exactly did the fake letter give Trump the idea? Am I missing something?
As Fiona Hill testified, the Russians like to disrupt. That's all this letter was.
"
This ignores the testimony of Fiona Hill during the hearings for Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.
Her testimony was not that the Trump Administration was actually considering a Ukraine/Venezuela swap, but to the contrary. She was charged with telling the Russians to (her words) "knock this off." And she testified that the Russians were floating this in the press, not directly to the administration. Nowhere (that I saw) does it indicate Trump was actually thinking about the swap.
I don't disagree that Fiona Hill seems like an impressive person. Citing her testimony to say "Trump got the idea from the Russians" has no basis in fact.
According to former ambassador Ken Fairfax on BSKY, the Russians pulled their people ten days before the US op. Make of that what you will.
It was reported before Christmas that the Russians were pulling their people, but I remember it being diplomats mostly. And there was plenty of saber-rattling by Trump, not to mention the buildup of force. They had already pulled a lot of military personnel earlier, from what I remember, but I always thought that was because of Ukraine. Still, they didn't pull the air defense systems they sold to Maduro. I'm sure the nations relying on Russian air defense are making of that what they will. See here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/01/05/venezuela-raid-weak-russian-air-defences-maduro-caracas/
Now maybe it was turned off and the US flipped some people. I don't know.
"
There hasn’t even been any sign of a Congressional resolution
Does 21 USC 960a count? I mean, Maduro is a narcoterrorist and was illegally importing cocaine. Even Biden agreed that he was a threat to the US, raising the reward for Maduro's capture to $25M. (query: Does Trump get that reward now?).
Harmut's comment was snark, but I'm being serious: if you have a de facto head of state that is illegitimate, also a narcoterrorist, no extradition treaty, refuses to stop drug trafficking after warning, is very badly dressed, etc., does extraditing by force require independent Congressional approval? If this was some prolonged military action, I get it. This was surgical (so far).
If I recall what I’ve seen this morning correctly, the indictment that is the basis for the arrest warrant says “fully automatic firearms”.
From what I read in the indictment (superseding from 2020; I think they are basically the same), the "full auto" counts are dependent on counts 1 and 2 (narcoterrorism and importation of cocaine). So it's not like the grounds are just "you have machine guns."
the galloping norm-crushing
I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think. On top of the drugs, the Chinese, Russian, Cuban and Iranian ties, 8 million people having left (more than left Syria), and the elections give ample reason to want Maduro gone. Not that "wanting him gone" is justification for a forced extradition, but there is much more going on here.
Over at BJ, Adam Silverman is reminding everyone that both the Greenland nonsense and the Venezuela idea were planted by the GRU.
Really? The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine. And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
That being said, time will tell. It's what happens now that gives me more concern. Venezolanos are celebrating but cautious about what comes next too.
China and Russia are delighted, I presume, about the current events. It’s exactly what they need for their own propaganda.
Sure, for their own, internal propaganda. But from a strategic standpoint, the US action should counter not only China and Russia's strategic aims in Venezuela, but Iran's and Cuba's too. The success of the mission in light of Russian air defense has to be taken into account. If this ends up toppling the Cuban or Iranian government by domino effect, who is going to cry? Shoot, it already caused the illustrious Gov. Waltz to stop his reelection campaign, lol.
On “Author, author?”
I don't know re authorship. I do know there really isn't an antidote to such a terrible comment. James Woods' heartfelt tribute to Rob Reiner is, however, a start.
https://x.com/JesseBWatters/status/2000754643865891146?s=20
Disclaimer: I know it's Fox News, something I don't watch. This was linked to on a blog I read and is well worth the listen, IMO. I do give credit to Watters getting out of the way (mostly) and letting Woods express himself.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
Harding's response to Question 6 is, IMO, spot on in terms of why we are where we are and how to make this a win-win.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-strategy-ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations
She doesn't talk about China much, but the impact on Taiwan of taking her win-win strategy would be overwhelmingly positive.
That being said, I don't have much hope that this will happen. Yes, what little hope I do have is pinned on my unlikely theory that Trump is trying to bring the EU/UK fully online to have a united front, Witkoff's bumblings notwithstanding.
"
russell:
How would that embolden Putin? My assumption would be the opposite.
Sorry, that was not clear. I meant if the US stepped back and Europe and UK stepped up, it would nonetheless embolden him. I suppose if PURL were still on the table, it would work for a while, especially if the US continued to supply intelligence. But Putin knows Europe and the UK cannot sustain the delivery of materials by themselves, at least not at this point. IMO, a US pull back in any form will embolden Putin, regardless of how the EU/UK respond.
"
I'm troubled by the purported peace proposal (I also note that since I started to write this, Trump is backing away from it). I want to see Ukraine free and prosperous and as intact as possible with a security guarantee (as the last one didn't work). This war is terrible and needs to end. And it needs to end in such a way as it doesn't happen again down the road as happened after Crimea. In a perfect world, Russia would be out of Ukraine. It's not a perfect world.
I can't tell whether or not Ukraine is on the brink. Certainly there is a conscription problem. If US support were to end, and the Europeans not step up, it would be a disaster. Even if the EU and UK did step up, it would be hard and embolden Putin and drag this debacle out even longer.
My take on Trump is to try to see the play and not focus on the particulars. One possibility: Trump is trying to get the Europeans to truly step up. Trump successfully got member nations to pay their fair share to NATO (well, collectively at least). The pause in US support brought Europe in even more. But despite the implementation by NATO of PURL (launched by Gen. Rutte and Trump) to fund the acquisition of ready to use weapons in US stockpiles for Ukraine, total military aid from Europe declined 43 percent in July and August of this year (humanitarian and financial support remained steady). I think that is the latest data. With the plan, the EU and the UK raced to take part in high-level talks and are voicing ever stronger support for Ukraine. I wonder if this really has nothing to do with appeasing Putin but lighting a fire under the Europeans (yet again)? It is their backyard, after all. And while they have stepped up, it doesn't make up for decades of underfunding the military and building a (mostly former) dependence on Russian gas. Europe isn't in a great position to take up the slack. And it should be.
Another reasonable take here: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-expert-conversation-separating-signal-from-noise-in-trumps-ukraine-peace-plan/
Hoping the Europeans really step in and Trump drops the hammer (e.g. Tomahawks). But I have my doubts on both.
On “Weekend music thread #03 Rhumba and the clave”
Russell: Loved this. And so fun "meeting" you in your element. Music really is the universal language.
But now I'm seeing your hands every time I read one of your comments, lol.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.