Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

What Trump Can Do for Ukraine

Published by

Clarissa

on

Somebody asked what I expect Trump to do for Ukraine. This is an excellent question with a simple answer.

What we need is a massive global crash of oil and gas prices. The US oil production needs to soar. This will be great for the US economy, too. Trump knows how to do it. He’s done it before.

Biden has adamantly refused to give licenses to domestic producers to sell oil to Europe, so Europe has been buying it from Russia this entire time. The EU is begging to be allowed to buy from the US. Isn’t it a complete insanity that we are refusing to sell? So let’s not do that any more, is what I’m saying. Let’s drill, let’s sell, let’s benefit our economy and achieve world peace in the process.

16 responses to “What Trump Can Do for Ukraine”

  1. donbenham Avatar
    donbenham

    Love this strategy.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  2. - W Avatar
    – W

    This would take roughly half a year, but if President Trump issues the licenses for domestic producers that Biden slashed and more or less got rid of in his first 4 weeks. That would go a long way to helping us and hindering Russia and OPEC. In addition there was the pipeline from Canada, that project might be able to be reopened, though it would likely take a year or two to get finished.

    Then there is the strategic concerns. Oil/Gas comes in several grades from Crude to Excellent. Biden was selling and using huge sections of the US fuel reserves. Those reserves were made up of high quality oil/gas. As far as I know, the stocks were never replaced after Biden drained them. So those need to be replaced too.

    Quite frankly after everything Biden and Kamila have done to the country, President Trump simply needs to toss a rock in any direction and it would automatically improve the state of the country.

    • – W

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Trump correctly says that Russia wasn’t doing any major new invasions during his term in office. And this is the reason. Oil prices were low. That’s the best way to control Russia. And it’s profitable for America, so what’s not to like? We shouldn’t be artificially constraining ourselves from full capacity production. It’s deeply insane that this is happening under Biden.

      Like

      Reply
  3. Nonna Maus Avatar
    Nonna Maus

    Question for everyone:

    Would you support tariffs on gasoline and fuel to protect the American oil, natural gas & petroleum products industries?

    Producing more of our own petroleum products would do wonders for national security. However, American oil extractors and refiners have higher costs than a lot of OPEC members, who could easily lower the prices of their oil and natural gas in price wars and put American produces and refiners out of business.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      I don’t understand tariffs, unfortunately. It’s not my topic at all.

      But I can do miles and miles of writing on subjectivity.

      Like

      Reply
      1. methylethyl Avatar
        methylethyl

        Tariffs can go either way depending on how used. They are sometimes used to protect corrupt domestic industries from foreign competition.

        But.

        Right now, they bloody well need to be used to increase the price of outsourcing to countries with laxer labor and environmental laws. Why bother with those things, if it’s just to pollute and exploit *somewhere else*?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. methylethyl Avatar
          methylethyl

          Also, IIRC they could be used strategically to manipulate energy prices, and protect domestic food security.

          Like

          Reply
      2. - W Avatar
        – W

        Explanation of Tariffs.

        First A Tariff is a Tax placed on goods being imported into the country. Now these are placed for a number of reasons, some good, some bad. Generally speaking a country that Exports finished goods rather than resources tends to do very well in terms of growth and general wealth for its population. The reverse is also true where a country that imports finished goods, tends to be bleeding money on top of loosing production jobs to the country its importing the finished goods from.

        Now this is generally fixed with tariffs. By slapping a tariff on a series of finished goods, or on any import in general from specific countries, this makes it much more expensive to buy said goods from overseas. Typically the more enterprising citizens see an opportunity and open their own production of these goods to sell somewhat cheaper. This provides jobs and keeps wealth inside the country. Now a government that needs these goods to flow faster than would naturally happen, can provide an incentive for said citizens to build these in the form of grants, tax reductions, special loans, etc.

        This part is where it starts getting complicated and very political. US History lesson on Tariffs. Back when we were still colonies of England, the English policy was that the colonies were not allowed to produce finished goods, they were required to sell resources to England and were restricted from buying finished goods from anywhere but England.

        For the English this was excellent, they were able to get natural resources for cheap, and then had a captive market to sell their finished goods to, that had no choice but to buy from them. This was one of the reasons the colonies had a bunch of people willing to support breaking away, especially in the Northeast.

        Once the colonies had broken away and formed the United States of America the states were in charge with a weak federal government. Who’s powers were listed out specifically in the founding documents.

        At this point Tariffs were put in place. These served several purposes. First they were one of the few revenue sources allowed to the government on all levels. Income Tax didn’t exist, property tax didn’t exist, you taxed tariffs and excise taxes. (Taxes placed on specific goods, think luxury items.) Tariffs also encouraged the citizens of the colonies to start creating industries if they wanted finished goods cheaper, and it worked, industry kicked off with a vengeance.

        Now for the government Tariffs were the primary source of revenue up until WWI when the Income Tax was passed as (An Emergency Tax to be repealed after the war ended and the debt paid off.) I bring this up because a lot of people like to argue without taxes we wouldn’t have roads, police, military, etc. This is a lie. All these existed before the income tax and everything that followed. The country was able to run for a century and a half on Tariffs and excise taxes. Despite Lincoln and his war of Northern Aggression.

        So back to politics and Tariffs. Since by the late 1900s, Tariffs were no longer the main source of taxes for the government, most politicians and well people in general have no idea what they are for or why they were in place. This lead to them being removed or lowered to the point they might as well have been, in the name of Free Trade. While this was going on a bunch of traitors decided that in the name of profit, shipping the manufacturing jobs overseas to lower the price of goods was a wonderful idea, and would help kick-start a failed state.

        This removed jobs from the US, which helped lower general household wealth. It took awhile to show because cheap goods were flowing in from China that offset things. Now however the prices of goods from overseas are rising due to well a lot of things, and we are seeing the results of those good jobs that were missing.

        Which leads us back to Tariffs. By putting major tariffs on all goods coming in from China, it immediately raises the price. This is what the media and those who don’t understand tariffs are raising sand about. The goal is not to “punish” China or those who are importing from China. There is two goals for this action. First by encouraging the businesses to move their manufacturing back to America by more or less locking them out of the American market until they do. And second by encouraging American citizens to start rebuilding our own industry once more, moving us away from the service industry we are currently stuck in.

        It will not be a clean process, and there will be a lot of pain from it, but at the moment America is a slave nation (Industry/Economy wise) and this will move us out of that and back into self reliance which is always a better place to be.

        Post Note : The government also made it more difficult for businesses in the late 1900s, by passing a Inventory Tax, which taxes a businesses inventory. This pushed companies to the Just In Time method of inventory, which means they keep what is on the shelves, but no real stock in reserve. Which is why the shelves go bare so quickly in an emergency. If they had a warehouse full of goods, they are taxed on them every year. Something to think about.

        • – W

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. - W Avatar
          – W

          Correction, there was in fact a property tax at the time, but it was used more to fund the local government rather than the states or fed.

          • – W

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply
  4. ed Avatar
    ed

    I’d also add remove all restrictions on what Ukrainians can and cannot do with the weapons that are provided to them.

    Biden ruined several amazing chances to do great damage to Russian aviation by not allowing strikes on Russian airfields. The same air fields where planes take off to lob massive bombs on Ukraine.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      I have no hope any of this will happen. Unfortunately, I believe that we’ll see yet another Sullivan bleating about de-escalation.

      Like

      Reply
  5. mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Offer to pull the US out of Nato in exchange for Russia pulling out of the Ukraine & Crimea. The 1856 Crimean War serves as a diplomatic precedent for such a possibility.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      That would be phenomenal. And it actually has a small chance of working.

      Great idea, loving it.

      Like

      Reply
  6. Nonna Maus Avatar
    Nonna Maus

    The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists seems to approve of this decision:

    Biden allowing Ukraine to strike into Russia is much ado for little consequence

    Maybe Biden read this article and took it to heart: Why Russia is more likely to go nuclear in Ukraine if it’s winning

    While historical precedents should not be applied uncritically across time and context, they can be mined for insights. The set of incentives for Russia to resort to nuclear use when it is about to win in Ukraine would not be dissimilar from those animating the US decision in 1945. Perhaps, Putin’s mention of Hiroshima and Nagasaki precedents in his September 2022 speech was more than a trope.

    A winning Russia might indeed have more to gain and less to lose from a nuclear strike than a retreating Russia.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      It’s true that Russians can freak out and start lobbing nukes according to their own logic that nobody else fully knows or understands. The policy of the Biden administration has made nuclear non-proliferation not viable. Now many countries will seek to develop nuclear weapons which makes the planet a lot more dangerous. Every day makes it harder to stave off the nuclear threat. We are all sitting here like ostriches with our hands in the sand, hoping that actions won’t have consequences. This is depressing and sad.

      Like

      Reply
  7. mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Trump’s 2nd term Foreign Policy

    Historical demobilization processes and diplomatic appointments shape the course of nations. Whether in the aftermath of World War I or in today’s complex geopolitical landscape, thoughtful leadership remains essential.

    The BRICS threat to the continued dominance of the dollar as the world currency, coupled with the huge national debt in conjunction with the almost total Federal bureaucracy corruption forces a massive downsizing of the Federal Government. Matt Whittaker serves to withdraw the US from the Nato alliance.

    The BRICS nations have been increasingly assertive in challenging the dominance of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. While the dollar has held this position since the end of World War II, recent geopolitical shifts and growing tensions between the West and Russia and China have prompted discussions about alternatives.

    The process of de-dollarization—reducing reliance on the dollar in international trade and finance—is gaining momentum. BRICS countries are exploring options beyond the greenback.

    Whitaker’s legal and criminal justice background may seem unconventional for this role, but his appointment reflects the administration’s priorities in global affairs.

    Amid ongoing conflicts like the war in Ukraine, Whitaker’s position becomes crucial. His stance on the US withdraw from Nato, will play a crucial role in Russia agreeing to withdraw from the Ukraine and Crimea. Similar to the post war 1856 Crimean war.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts