The Laughing Wolf

Wow. Not quite the first word that popped into my head as things unfolded/I caught up with things. Good enough though. I’ve never seen anything like it, and I can’t think of a time the representative of a country seeking aid behaved so outrageously and unprofessionally not just in my lifetime, but in the entire history of the United States of America. However, to set the groundwork, here is the entire event which you really do need to watch in full:

If you go by carefully edited snippets in corporate/legacy media, one might think that this was the fault of Trump and/or Vance. If you watch the whole thing, you know nothing could be further from the truth. This was all on Zelensky who arrived like a spoiled toddler cosplaying a role.

What Zelensky displayed is far too common in Western Europe, where it is fashionable and acceptable (and far too common for my taste) to display such arrogant entitlement towards America and Americans. I will note that when you get out into the countryside, or more into Eastern Europe, this fades. Or, at least it did when I last traveled around a bit.

I personally think arrogant is polite and understated for his attitude. To still be dressing as the beset military (he’s not) leader three plus years on is a bit much, but it’s his act at this point. The fact that it was dated more than two years ago doesn’t seem to have penetrated to him or any of his team. That many people (even the people of the EU as opposed to their parasitic leadership) consider it dated and even insulting at this point is not going to register to this narcissist. In fact, I’ve wondered if it isn’t a calculated insult at this point rather than simply him being an actor unwilling to relinquish a beloved costume that was threadbare long ago.

To then, on top of this overwrought stage act, attack the President and Vice President of the United States IN THE OVAL OFFICE like a spoiled entitled brat being denied a treat, well wow seems pretty mild. Oh, and this behavior comes on top of the fact that Zelensky actually campaigned for Harris in Pennsylvania before this… For an actor and alleged comedian he sure doesn’t know how to read a room, much less the mood of the country that has kept his corrupt ass in power to their own detriment.

Also, I think calling Vice President Vance a bitch (in Ukrainian) was deliberately done to make the attack as personal as possible. I think it was a deliberate effort to poison the well, not just a bit of temper tantrum. One also needs to keep in mind that Rubio’s death stare was in part because everything had been set to sign, and Zelensky (again) blew up such plans and in so doing attempted to put a knife in Rubio’s back.

As best I can tell, this was a feat of self-immolation unprecedented in the annals of diplomacy. There was, however, one person who realized how badly Zelensky was screwing the pooch: his ambassador.

I could almost feel sorry for her. If you’ve never had to sit and watch a boss screw up in an important meeting, you are lucky. In this case, she had to sit and watch as Zelensky torched further aid, support, and peace. Almost, but given her own role in what I strongly suspect will turn out to be a worse boondoggle than many have assumed my sympathy is limited.

One thing that has surprised me a bit is the silence of the Russians. Remaining silent for now really is the smart thing to do, but when do politicians do the smart thing? That said, they are being silent in public but there does appear to be background chatter so to speak that may go something on the order “Holy Sheet! How flipping stupid can he be???” Paraphrasing a bit, but at least for now the Russians seem content to sit back and see just how deep a hole Zelensky can dig for himself and Ukraine. Probably won’t last as long as some could hope, as Zelensky seems to be intent on continuing the nuclear-level implosion, but one can’t blame them for keeping quiet and doing the Russian equivalent of popping popcorn to eat as they watch in fascination.

I have to admit, I would have paid real money to have been able to watch Vladimir’s face (and Lavarov’s and Shoigu’s) in real time as he watched this unfold. Fact is, Zelensky just handed them a massive break, and they know it. Anyone think they won’t run with it?

Right now, I don’t feel sorry for the American public. Depending on various factors and polls, it’s almost 80 percent that put Trump in office and are on record as being tired of continuing to send billions of dollars to Ukraine for no return and little thanks while Americans go without (WNC, etc.). Zelensky ripped the mask off himself and metaphorically went to the restroom on the living room carpet. They really did need to see that, and know the complete and utter contempt in which they are held by Zelensky and his government.

Right now, I do feel sorry for the Ukrainian people. I know and visit with Russian and Ukrainian immigrants, refugees, and such. None of them wanted this war, much less the forever war set in motion by Zelensky and the Biden Regency (along with EU leadership and others). They deserve far better than this anti-democratic clown.

When the initial invasion was repulsed (running Spring ’68 again down to the same units in some cases was not a good idea), I admit I celebrated. I had hoped that things could be calmed down, though I also noted that it was better to deal with things now rather than later. Took some flack for not being a supporter of total war, but I was (am, I hope) realistic and know how easy it is to have things go hot in ways not good for Ukraine, Russia, or the world. With the “leadership” of the Biden Regency involved on the military side of things, I was not optimistic for good, much less reasoned, policy. Think I was very right on that. I think far more could have been done to restore taken territory and put Ukraine in a better position, but that was never the goal of the Biden Regency.

I don’t think Zelensky truly wants peace for several reasons. Right now billions of dollars and supplies continue to flood into a country known for its corruption. There is reason to believe that some of those supplies, not just weapons, are going places other than to the troops. It’s lucrative for those in power to keep that up while claiming the war makes it impossible to truly audit and control things. If the war ends, there will be elections that he is quite likely to lose. Given the tactics used on his opponents (not to mention non-opponents like the Orthodox Church) it might not be healthy for him to be out of power. Rumors of homes and estates bought elsewhere might not be rumors one could think.

While I am sure the diplo-macs can create a way, but I really don’t see a way back for Zelensky. He showed his true self to the American public, and they are not going to forget this or be swayed into it being the fault of anyone but him. Yes, the 20 percent may go that route, but I don’t see that happening in the 80. In fact, I think a lot of people are missing the mood of the 80 percent, dangerously so even.

I think the best thing we can do right now is do as asked: Let Europe take this on without our backup. I think it is time to stop all aid to such things as pensions, government operations, rebuilding, etc. within Ukraine. Frankly, I think we should pause all military support until such time as a full forensic audit can be completed on the funds and goods sent to Ukraine. Follow any corruption wherever it leads, be that there, the EU, or here and prosecute those involved to the fullest extent of the law. If weapons and other items have gone places they shouldn’t, that needs to be dealt with too.

Personally, I want a good peace for this conflict. That means something that respects and validates Ukrainian territorial sovereignty, puts a cropper on Russkiy Mir, and avoids kicking cans down the road as much as possible. Not going to be easy or fun, but I think it is doable.

But, I don’t think it is doable with Zelensky or his clique in power.

What happens now? Who knows. Frankly, if anyone can work out a deal on this it is President Donald Trump. I hope he does. I also hope that he gives the EU leadership and others what they want: freedom to protect themselves and those they desire to protect, but without our funds or military in support. It is past time to pull the plug on NATO. There are some other areas where we need to fundamentally re-evaluate our participation and support. We also, as discussed here previously, need to look at new opportunities.

UPDATE I: Over on X, Mollie Hemingway has an excellent and growing thread (look on her timeline at need for info on Chris Murphy and others) that this may have been a set-up on more than Zelensky’s part. Interesting how certain people here seemed to be involved and so many global elites had immediate and similar responses to the event. Like almost cut-and-paste. Very interesting and it is some good food for thought to add to the above. Also, if even partly true, more reason to let Europe fend for itself.

UPDATE II: Go read this interesting and good food for thought at “L’ Ombre de l’Olivier. He makes some interesting points. Also, corrected one typo above.

UPDATE III: L’Ombre de l’Olivier has a follow-up post that is well worth reading. I do have some quibbles with parts. I probably should do a full post but for now, some quick thoughts on things I’m not sure are missing or were raised by implication. First, I would argue for four groups, and will simply note that there are those of us who do realize that there are things we need from (and in) Europe. We just want to be more selective about it and yes, we are fed up with funding freeloaders. And that’s exactly what most (repeat most) of NATO are. Second, if you go back and read my archives, I pointed out early on that we had a moral obligation to Ukraine though not a legal one as the Memorandums were never ratified. That said we are NOT obligated to take steps that will result in either a conventional or nuclear world war. Quick aside, I’m in full agreement with Francis that only 10-20 percent of our nuclear systems will work, though I’m far more worried that those of newer rogue states will work. Third, you can again find in the archives that I don’t think Vladimir can be trusted to honor any treaty. He’s all in on Russkiy Mir and is not going to give up. Fourth, almost everyone seems to be missing that the United States is in a fight for it’s own life, and on two fronts. Front A: financially we are broke and without major reforms (DOGE is but a start) we will default and soon. Front B: right now is probably our one and only chance to deal with the massive unelected bureaucracy and save the Great Experiment that is our Republic. We do it now, or the Republic is done. Fifth, whatever Zelensky was when he started, I think he has been compromised. Sixth, one reason the EU is all in on endless war in Ukraine is that it’s so-called elites make bank off the corruption, human trafficking, and more that is going on; see this as a way to bleed Russia and are willing to fight to the last Ukrainian to do so; see it as a way to make money as right now a number of European (and American) companies are making money off military sales to Russia (which also is a means of control they think); and, to try to leverage Uncle Sugar to keep being Uncle Sugar on their terms. Some of this is being discussed in the comments, but again some of this could take several posts to fully cover.

UPDATE IV: Francis has updated his post and makes some good points. This being the first week of Lent, not sure when I will get to do another post but hopefully soon. Also, don’t miss Sarah A. Hoyt’s post and the body language analysis I think is spot on. To follow-up quickly on the EU leadership issues, I would add to what I wrote in UPDATE III that the EU leadership hopes to also bleed Russia dry and to encourage it to break up. As discussed before (see the archives), the fracture lines are there but I think they may be misreading things rather badly. First, they are doing this while dependent on Russian energy to keep their people alive and industry running. Calling that stupid is mild I think. Second, the collapse of the Soviet Union was ahistorical, as in a rarity. It was an amazingly soft landing for the world, and that is the exception not the rule. There are no guarantees a breakup of Russia will be as smooth, and there are a lot of reasons to think it will not be. Not the least of which (also previously discussed) is China. Then again, the progressives/WEF types seem to have inherited in full measure the Gotterdammerung sensibilities of the Nazi elite: if they lose power it is the end of their world, therefore it is the end of the world, and better to see it all burn. Yeah, really do need to do some more posts on some of the second, third, and even fourth order effects here.

Getting hit by lightning is not fun! If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, feel free to hit the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo, use the options in the Tip Jar in the upper right, or drop me a line to discuss other methods. There is also the Amazon Wish List in the Bard’s Jar. It is thanks to your gifts and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.

A quick follow-up on The Suicide Of NATO and Post NATO posts. There are people asking who provides the nuclear tripwire and deterrent for a NATO without the U.S. or any new agreement we enter into.

Radical Idea: It should not be us. For a truly European NATO, I will simply note that both England and France are nuclear powers. Let them provide tripwire and deterrence. That does also work to keep things regional, including costs. As far as any new post-NATO grouping with the U.S., note that I specifically call for it to be economic based, not military based.

Now, if you really want to make heads explode, I would further invite you to consider that the nuclear club is expanding already, mostly along the axis of Evil. Maybe we should consider a controlled expansion on our side the line, and to that end I would nominate Poland.

They have the scientific talent, the military skill, and long memories. Memories that should make certain countries on both sides of them behave cautiously and carefully. The fact that it would cause great consternation both West and East just makes it all the better.

Also, Poland would be a good place to gather as many current European nukes when England, Germany, and other EU countries fall to the Caliphate. I would like to think that responsible parties in England, France, or anywhere else that has nuclear weapons or materials would try to keep them from falling to Islamic control when the fall comes. Then again, I look at the current crop of English politicians and know it’s not going to be them and the best we can hope for in that case is some professionalism being left in the military. Not much hope there either, but…

In case I wasn’t blunt enough the other day, I do think most of the EU has a good chance of falling to the Caliphate within a single generation, and I include the UK in that. The only real hope for England is an uprising, and I swear I think that’s been bred out of the English people. For France, it is again with the public, and I wish Tom Kratman was right on something he said a few years back about the population stepping up, getting very pragmatic, and dealing with things as the French Government is not going to do it. Especially with Macaroon tanking elections, closing down television networks, and other efforts to keep power.

The only real bright spot I see right now is Italy, and I hope the current parties in power can remain there and will also continue to be willing to buck the EU. Brexit was a warning to the EU, but with Starmer licking, er, boots and defacto rejoining the EU, don’t think the message stuck. Push comes to shove, I think Italy has a good shot at survival.

Eastern Europe has good reason to consider going off on it’s own as previously discussed. All the more reason for the U.S. to build a relationship with them on the lines I proposed. When the fall comes, they may well be what helps contain things, though it is more than ironic that they may become the first line of defense for Russia and others. It may also be key to saving Europe from the Caliphate, as the Winged Hussars may yet have to ride again.

Final thought on our nuclear deterrent capabilities: they suck. We need to do serious work on the triad, as our missiles needed replacing decades ago; the air and related component has not been really kept up all that well (not to mention that the BUFF is likely to still be flying in a hundred years, really would not be surprised to see one given space engines so it can fly with the USS Enterprise to defend the Federation); and, right now we have naval leadership that I don’t think can get a rowboat across the lake in Central Park. We need serious upgrades, and until we get them we have no business trying to be a tripwire or a deterrent.

Just some quick thoughts to share.

Getting hit by lightning is not fun! If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, feel free to hit the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo, use the options in the Tip Jar in the upper right, or drop me a line to discuss other methods. There is also the Amazon Wish List in the Bard’s Jar. It is thanks to your gifts and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.

I’m unsurprised to already see a comment on the Suicide of NATO post pointing out logistics problems with a new NATO with the Baltic States. My inner smartass is tempted to say “No Bleep!” while my inner book promoter notes that someone apparently hasn’t read Cauldron as those issues are discussed there at length. Both responses, however, need to be set aside so as to focus on the fact that “a new NATO” is the last thing we should be doing. To repeat failure is arrant stupidity.

First up, why should we set ourselves up as a tripwire again? What benefit for the U.S. is there in so doing? Against whom are we playing tripwire, Russia or the EU?

The fact is, the former Eastern Bloc are the countries most enthusiastically embracing and encouraging freedom and the concepts of Western Civilization. Are they doing so exactly on our model? No, thank goodness. Each is taking a different approach, and in that regard they are acting much like the founding Fathers envisioned the states in the United States. Each was free to try different things, and the things that worked could then be adopted by other states while avoiding the things that failed.

Remember, we are The Great Experiment and if you don’t know what that is, sue your schools and do some research. The whole concept of regular individuals being bright enough to make choices on their own was only a thing of intellectual thought until the Founding Fathers needed to put a government of, by, and for the people into place. Many, including progressives here and overseas (which includes pretty much all EU leadership) still feel that such is wrong and that you are not capable of such. Understand not only your civics, but the history of your civics…

Now, back to topic. Do we have a legitimate and/or vested interest in free and independent states that promote freedom and the values of Western Civilization? I posit that we do, one that is worth investing in those states. Why that is, is a post for another day. For now, simply accept that my thesis is based on this being true.

The question is, who now threatens those states and what are the threats?

NATO was predicated on a military threat from the USSR. While the USSR has fallen, Russia does have even larger territorial ambitions as outlined in Russkiy Mir (Russia World). If you like, look up previous discussions here on that topic (search function, along with the tip jar are on the upper right) but you do want to read up on it as it is the guiding document for Vladimir and current Russian leadership. And, yes, Ukraine was the first step in it.

The Russian military, conventional or nuclear, is clearly not the threat it was many years ago (discussions on that being wrong are for another day). Vaunted stockpiles are useless and have to be scrapped, and it is only through Western industry violating sanctions and such that it is even starting to hang on. Yes, I do think those sales are an even larger part of things that what is being done by Iran and North Korea.

Individually, some of the larger countries such as Poland or Hungary can defend themselves if they continue to go as they are. Working together, the countries in question should easily be able to do so. Without the U.S. having to rush troops in via a modern Reforger. Resupply of logistics may be a different issue, but it is not an urgent one at this time.

The larger threat right now comes on other fronts, including diplomatic and logistical. Yes, I know I just said that the resupply of logistics wasn’t urgent, and it’s not. What is important is energy, and Russia has been using this as a weapon, effectively, for a while now. One need only look at Germany for a prime example. Germany has committed energy suicide, and while it is reversible, it’s current leadership is refusing to admit there is a problem, much less take positive steps to fix it. Much of what they seem to want to do involves energy from Russia. From whom we are supposed to be defending them…

The energy issue is one for a post of it’s own one day, but almost every major EU country except for France is committing energy suicide. While not back in the EU, the UK is doing the same just without buying (yet) from Russia. France has bucked the trend (and the EU to some extent) by going heavy into new nuclear, which actually is quite smart. Not something I normally associate with the government(s) of France, but it truly is the smart thing to do, and we need to go with some of the advanced SMRs and newer systems here.

It’s time, however, for the elephant in the room. For all that I don’t see the EU as lasting, it is here and it plans to stay here by hook, crook, or force against its members. Most of the former Eastern Bloc have joined the EU and the EU has waged political war against some of them who have not toed the Brussels line. To the point of removing at least one government. I see no reason they would not engage in a military war to ensure their continued rule. Again, read Cauldron because the current EU seems to be following the playbook of the bad guys in it.

Which, skipping a few steps I think you can posit on your own, leads me to the idea that any “new NATO” should be nothing such; rather, it should focus on trade, energy, diplomacy, and ensuring that the countries involved have forces on their own capable of meeting threats from any direction. Trade boosts their economies as well as our own, and can help us reboot certain manufacturing sectors. Energy ensures their independence, and with research and other sharing agreements could provide an opportunity to test and advance nuclear and other advanced generation means. Heck, it could even provide a chance to upgrade and modernize some older generation systems (hydro for one example). Good diplomacy builds better relationships even as it discourages the stupid from doing stupid things.

Now, I do think that it is to our advantage to work with them to help them build the military systems they want and need. I can think of a few scenarios where having the ability to work with and integrate forces might be a good idea. The way to do that is through trade. We sell them systems, we sell them training, and we sell them supplies. We might give them a discount even. More than that, for those interested, we offer training opportunities here for their troops, and it might not hurt if some of ours trained there. We build them up as close as possible to our old standards (which hopefully Pete and company will get us back to), and we make sure we can work together at need. What they need is their own military, not ours, being known as capable of defending them against all comers.

Whatever we call this new thing, it must not be just a rehash of NATO. It needs to focus on economic well being, promotion of the values of Western Civilization, with an internal professional and potent military. It must not become yet another suck of manpower, material, and money. In that way you avoid the issues raised in Cauldron about logistics and resupply. Unless Russia or the EU want to start a war by sinking ships, free trade is the best way to work around things.

*****

Some quick related thoughts not germane to the post. We are going to have to look at how to work around some things no matter what happens here soon.

The UK became a staging ground in WWII because it was off the coast of Europe as much as it was an ally (sorta, some discussion there too). We needed bases for aircraft, ships, and troops, and England provided them. With the end of WWII and the start of the Cold War, those bases remained needed to counter the USSR. Scapa Flow and other bases up north provided sanctuary for ships and subs, along with the ability to sortie in several directions. Air bases provided the ability to reach Europe, Africa, and Scandinavia with ease.

Over the last couple of decades, however, the UK has gutted its military on a scale that made Obama green with envy. If you want to have some fun, look at tanks in say 1985 versus now. You can do that with planes and more if you like. Fact is, the UK has indeed limited our use of air fields and even or own assets when we were needing to respond to various incidents over the years. The state of the ports unfortunately mirrors our own.

One way or another we are going to need to look at how much we need/want forward basing, and what options there might be. We sure don’t need another turkey like Turkey and I fear that is where we are headed with England.

Which ties into some of the discussions in Cauldron about the problems of supporting the former Eastern Bloc/Baltic states in time of war. Especially as unlike the novel, I don’t see Denmark going neutral and could see England going actively hostile. Given that I’m not sure our current naval leadership could successfully get a rowboat across the lake in Central Park, I sure don’t trust it to run supplies into the Baltic in a time of war. Resupply by air just isn’t feasible in terms of amounts, much less the routings that would have to be used to avoid EU airspace. For all that I think there might be a few surprises in terms of EU members not taking part in such, it just reinforces my contention that we should avoid doing a “new NATO” at all costs. I think what I’ve outlined above is far better.