Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Patriots in Place

Published by

Clarissa

on

We had to beg Biden for every one of these, beg him, and hear all sorts of excuses about how it was absolutely impossible.

Trump becomes president, suddenly everything is possible. The entire Ukrainian segment of the social media exists in the “wait, what?” mode. Except for the part that is doing the “I told you so” thing.

P.S. By the way, Israel acted despicably throughout the transfer, and only the recent serious pressure from the WH managed to resolve everything. It’s quite shocking that Israel would have the gall to try to mandate what the US does with the weapons it so kindly provided to the defense of Israel.

26 responses to “Patriots in Place”

  1. ed Avatar
    ed

    “P.S. By the way, Israel acted despicably throughout the transfer, and only the recent serious pressure from the WH managed to resolve everything. It’s quite shocking that Israel would have the gall to try to mandate what the US does with the weapons it so kindly provided to the defense of Israel.”

    Israel are a horrible ally. They only care about themselves. Up until recently they were very happy to be doing business with Russia and China.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Exactly. Very ungrateful.

      Like

      Reply
    2. mosckerr Avatar
      mosckerr

      ed – go fuck yourself.

      Like

      Reply
    3. PaulS Avatar
      PaulS

      Everyone does business with China, not so much Russia.

      Like

      Reply
  2. el Avatar
    el

    Israel was worried that the transfer would move Russia to strengthen Iran in the midst of our own ongoing war and our possible approaching attack on Iranian nuclear program. Here news from 2 days ago which seem to support this fear:

    Iran has purchased Russian Sukhoi-35 fighter jets, a senior official in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Monday, in a potential boost for Iran’s ailing air force amid increasing tensions with Israel and the United States. (2 days ago)

    Like

    Reply
    1. cliff arroyo Avatar
      cliff arroyo

      “Israel was worried that the transfer would move Russia to strengthen Iran “

      So instead…. it decided to let Iran beta test and perfect its weaponized drone program… and let russia help it anyway….. for two years???????

      Do Israelis even hear themselves?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Clarissa Avatar
        Clarissa

        Exactly. Iran has been humongously strengthened since 2022. I don’t understand the logic under which this makes Israel safer. I do, however, understand how it makes Russian oligarchs living in Israel happier.

        Like

        Reply
        1. PaulS Avatar
          PaulS

          If Israel doesn’t work out for them, we seem to be a safe space for Russian oligarchs.

          https://www.capetownetc.com/news/sanctioned-russian-billionaires-superyacht-spotted-at-va-waterfront/

          Like

          Reply
    2. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      It’s time for Israel to start worrying about annoying the only guarantee of their existence, which is the US.

      Like

      Reply
  3. v07 Avatar
    v07

    Well, I guess people seriously discussing annexing Greenland, Panama or Canada do not get to complain about Israel being selfish (which it is). By the way, do you believe there is some fundamental difference between Trumps’ ideas of annexing something for the sake of national security / preventing Chinese and Russian influence, and/or for the sake of resources and one of Putin’s justifications for attacking Ukraine (national security / preventing Western influence). If so – what is the difference? I mean, beyond “we are right because it is us”?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      The word “annexing” is doing heavy labor in your comment, V07. Trump said he’ll try to buy Greenland from Denmark. It is definitely not the same as annexing. I mean, I bought a bottle of Propel water at the store today. Nobody would say I annexed it.

      The difference between invading and not invading is just that. One is the opposite of the other.

      Leaving that aside, the argument of “the US invaded Iraq, so what’s the problem with us invading Ukraine?” is the favorite rhetorical device of Russians. I find it uninteresting because, again, the difference is that Russia is not the US. Why can’t I have a university-provided BMW SUV with a chauffeur like the university Chancellor does? Because I’m not the university Chancellor. Quod licet Jovi, etc etc. This idea is intolerable to Russians because it aggravates their narcissistic woundedness but why should we care? It’s reality. Israel has a choice to become completely self-reliant and then do whatever it feels like. The same goes for Ukraine. Thirty years were wasted and now the bills have come due. Nobody will provide and then respect your sovereignty. There is finally a realization of this in Ukraine but Israel is not getting the message.

      Like

      Reply
      1. v07 Avatar
        v07

        Do not worry, I am not justifying the Russians. I am concerned that US is stooping to the same (low) level as them. This concern goes together with my previous argument about why so many Trumpers are pro-Russian. Because they literally identify with the Russians. Not with some individual Russians from Donetsk or Uryupinsk, but with the collective “Russians as powerful nation that can dictate neighbors what to do and invade if necessary”. Somebody resisting Russian invasion is offending their “Some pigs are more equal than others”… And now we are getting more and more rhetoric to prove my point…

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          The problem with the statement that “Russia is a powerful country” is that it isn’t.

          America is. I’m not”America First”, so I have no objection to the US being the world policeman and everything this involves. I also don’t understand the logic according to which the US should be able to tell Russia not to invade but shouldn’t be able to tell Panama to remove the Chinese from controlling the canal. My position is consistent in that I support the US telling both countries what to do or suffer the consequences. What is your position? It’s a completely sincere question. Is it OK for the US to pressure Russia but not Panama? Was it OK to manhandle Panama during the Cold War? Was it always not OK? Because the US installed a CIA agent as the president of Panama and then invaded to remove him. Compared to that, Trump did absolutely nothing of notice.

          Like

          Reply
          1. v07 Avatar
            v07

            Order of steps is important.

            In case of Ukraine, 1) Russia attacks, 2) Ukraine decides that it wants to resist and asks US and the West in general for help 3) the US makes a calculation of what is in its national interests and starts supplying weapons, pressuring Russia, etc.

            In case of Panama the loose equivalent would be a) Panama decides that too much Chinese influence is a problem FOR THEM. 2) they ask the US for help in removing/limiting said Chinese influence, 3) the US makes a calculation of what is in its national interests and starts doing something with the Chinese influence in Panama, pressuring China, etc.

            Were there any credible requests from Panama? From Greenland? From Canada?

            Like

            Reply
            1. Clarissa Avatar
              Clarissa

              So the US can only act if somebody asks? It can defend interests of other sovereign nations but not its own?

              Even Santa presumably eats before delivering gifts.

              Like

              Reply
          2. v07 Avatar
            v07

            I am not against you being the police. But police is not supposed to have “national interests” of its own. Otherwise one starts getting into situations where police starts taking over people’s homes on the grounds that somebody somewhere may want to commit a crime against the homeowner.

            Like

            Reply
            1. cliff arroyo Avatar
              cliff arroyo

              “police is not supposed to have “national interests” of its own”

              What country doesn’t have “national interests of its own”?

              What other entity can act as quickly and decisively as the US? the UN? ha ha ha! the EU ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

              It’s the US or let larger more aggressive countries do what they want. Sucks to be Taiwan. Sucks to be Ukraine.

              Panama owes its existence as a country to the US. The Canal is there’s they should get the lion’s share of the profits but it’s too strategically important to allow China to have too much influence. Do I need to remind you that the current governing party of China is responsible for the worst famine in human existence? And has shown no remorse whatsoever?

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply
            2. Clarissa Avatar
              Clarissa

              Since having no national interests of its own is clearly an untenable position for the US, this must mean you are advocating for complete isolationism of America First. Nothing else remains within the model you propose.

              Like

              Reply
        2. cliff arroyo Avatar
          cliff arroyo

          “why so many Trumpers are pro-Russian”

          90% of that is falling for RT propaganda (also pushed now by Tucker Carlson) about russia being a country where traditional Christian values dominate.

          Ridiculous to anyone who knows anything but all they know about russia comes from russian shills.

          10% is maybe from power fantasies (though trumpers tend more toward isolationism rather than expansion of the American Empire).

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
          1. Clarissa Avatar
            Clarissa

            Matt Walsh, for example, says very clearly and consistently that he is in favor of ending all foreign aid to everybody immediately. I don’t share this position but I understand and respect it. It’s logical and consistent. I can respect any position as long as it’s clear and logical.

            Like

            Reply
      2. cliff arroyo Avatar
        cliff arroyo

        ““the US invaded Iraq, so what’s the problem with us invading Ukraine?” is the favorite rhetorical device of Russians”

        I like to counter that with a simple “America is better than russia.”

        At least on line, in person it would probably lead to violence.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          That’s exactly what I always say. Some countries are superior than others. Simple as that.

          Like

          Reply
  4. v07 Avatar
    v07

    the concept of the “police” implies some degree of impartiality and following the rule of law. One cannot simultaneously be the police and the largest gang in town (with its interests). Or I guess one can, in a wild west style movie. In the movies about more recent times this kind of “police” is considered crooked. I stand by what I said, I do not mind the US being the police in the conventional meaning of the word, I do mind them being the largest gang in town claiming to be the police. Being better than Russia or China is too low a bar.

    —Panama owes its existence as a country to the US.

    Heard similar arguments a lot from the Russians, about pretty much all countries that were ever a part of the Russian empire. But indeed I get it, you genuinely do not realize to how similar your arguments have become to the Russian ones…

    Like

    Reply
    1. cliff arroyo Avatar
      cliff arroyo

      “I get it”

      Oh, wise one!

      “you genuinely do not realize to how similar your arguments have become to the Russian ones”

      “А у вас негров линчуют”?

      A couple of differences…. russians thinks they should be in charge of everywhere that a Tsar ever farted…. (why they have billboards up about ‘retaking’ Alaska).

      I don’t want the US to be in charge of Panama, Canada or Greenland.

      I think buying Greenland is inefficient and the best offer for all concerned would be the status quo with expanded US military presence combined with some resource extraction, neither of which Greenland can do on its own (not sure how much Denmark could do either) and backed with hefty payments to Greenland.

      Canada, I don’t care about. Let me know when the troop build up on the border begins or when the first bombing raids start….

      I’ve already stated my position on Panama and await your arguments on why China should be allowed to gain control given that it is openly preparing to invade Taiwan and engage in military conflict with the US (unless the US follows your principles and refuses to defend Taiwan since it has political interests in the region).

      Like

      Reply
      1. Clarissa Avatar
        Clarissa

        As for the Panama canal, the right of the US to defend its neutrality, including by military means, was in the original agreements. This was the official justification to invade Panama in 1989 and remove Noriega. It was always spelled out and enthusiastically agreed by the Panamanian leadership that the US retains the right to invade in return for handing over the canal. This happened historically quite recently. I have no idea why we are now pretending none of this took place. Speaking of analogies with Russia, this does remind me how one half of the exchange in which Ukraine received the Crimea is completely erased to pretend that Russia received nothing and it was a gift instead of an exchange.

        Trump’s statements on Panama are completely in accordance with the existing treaties and international law.

        Like

        Reply
    2. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      If the theory is that MAGAs like aggressive presidents, then why don’t they love Obama, George W Bush and Bill Clinton? Unlike Trump, these presidents actually invaded, bombed countries, toppled regimes. All three were massively more aggressive than Trump who bombed exactly nobody and only aggressed through statements. MAGAs deeply despise George W Bush, for example. Trump won their hearts at the moment when he denounced the war in Iraq back in 2015.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts