dChan
Anonymous ID: cd2302 March 4, 2022, 7 a.m. No.15780315   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Reminder: The Presidential Debate Commission Worked To Hide Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy From Voters

 

BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE

MARCH 03, 2022

 

America didn’t have a serious foreign policy debate in 2020. The supposedly non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates made sure of it after President Donald Trump finished his first term with an explosion of Middle East peace deals redefining what was possible in a broken world of fragile diplomacy.

 

Six days prior to the third and final debate between then-former Vice President Joe Biden and the incumbent president, moderator and NBC News White House Correspondent Kristen Welker released the topics for the Tennessee showdown.

 

“Fighting COVID-19,” “American Families,” “Race in America,” “Climate Change,” “National Security,” and “Leadership,” were all included. Foreign policy, a topic traditionally reserved for the final televised debate was conspicuously absent.

 

“We urge you to recalibrate topics,” Trump Campaign Manager Bill Stepien wrote to the commission at the time, blasting the forum for unilaterally revoking foreign affairs from the discussion. “As is the long-standing custom, and as has been promised by the Commission on Presidential Debates, we had expected that foreign policy would be the central focus of the October 2022 debate.”

 

After changing the debate rules mid-cycle to Biden’s benefit, the commission, run entirely by supporters of the Democratic ticket, refused to relent, and foreign policy remained off the table as the two went head-to-head at Belmont University. The motivations behind the commission’s decision were clear, and the consequences 14 months later would prove tragic.

 

Global affairs had been an area of triumph under the Trump administration, which successfully navigated four years with no new wars while applying overdue pressure on overseas adversaries as means of deterrence. A trio of peace deals between generational rivals across the Middle East served as the grand finale in the final days leading to the November election, demonstrating a White House presiding over a new era of diplomatic tranquility.

 

The debate commission was not about to allow the president to showcase his greatest accomplishments against a lifelong politician who, in the words of his own prior administration’s defense secretary, had “been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

 

Biden would not demonstrate any more competence as commander in chief than he did during his initial 40 years in Washington, while his son leveraged his name to generate millions from foreign business deals. Blockbuster revelations to emerge in the days preceding the third debate about Hunter Biden’s foreign ventures were also grounds for the politicized commission to shield their preferred candidate from the legitimate attacks he might ensue.

 

Two days before the final debate topics were announced, The New York Post published emails contradicting Joe Biden’s long-held claims he had never discussed Hunter’s business ventures with his son, “or with anyone else.” The former vice president even fat-shamed an Iowa voter who pressed the candidate on the issue during the Democrat primaries.

 

According to emails obtained by the Post, however, Biden met with a Ukrainian consultant for the energy company Burisma in a meeting arranged by Hunter. At the time, Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board raking in upwards of $50,000 a month in excess compensation despite no prior experience in the industry. Joe Biden was then the Obama administration’s “public face” of White House policy towards Ukraine.

 

A second bombshell report came the following day, preceding the debate commission’s surprise announcement. More emails published by The New York Post from the same hard drive that would later be forensically verified indicated Joe Biden stood to personally rake in millions from Chinese business partners stemming from Hunter’s ventures.

 

The apparent conflicts of interest calling into question a major presidential candidate’s capacity for diplomacy in Americans’ best interest would surely garner a greater spotlight in a debate focused primarily on foreign affairs….

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/03/reminder-the-presidential-debate-commission-worked-to-hide-joe-bidens-foreign-policy-from-voters/

Anonymous ID: cd2302 March 4, 2022, 7:05 a.m. No.15780349   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0404 >>0419

My question is why is Ukraine their sacrificial lamb? They always planned on destroying the scene of their crimes

 

https://twitter.com/MaxAbrahms/status/1499364864468430852?s=20&t=gzIH41At9h75Two82cq2mQ

Anonymous ID: cd2302 March 4, 2022, 7:13 a.m. No.15780396   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0607

Reliving the nightmare of 1914

World War I had no good guys, no winners, just mediocre, small-minded politicians unable to step back from the brink

by David P. Goldman March 4, 2022

 

World War I had no good guys and no winners. France rightly sought the return of the provinces Germany had annexed in 1870. Russia rightly feared that German influence would sever its industrial centers and tax base in the Western parts of it its empire; England feared that Germany would encroach on its overseas empire; Germany feared that Russia’s railroad system would overcome its advantage in mobility and firepower. None of them wanted a war, but each of them decided that it was better to fight in 1914 than fight later at a disadvantage.

 

Historian Christopher Clark in his 2013 book The Sleepwalkers forever buried the black legend of German aggression in 1914, with proof from Russian archives that the Czar’s mobilization – with French incitement – provoked the outbreak of war. There’s no hero to cheer, no villain to boo in the first tragedy of the 20th century, just mediocre and small-minded politicians unable to step back from the brink.

 

All of them acted rationally in the pursuit of their vital interests, but at the same stupidly as well as wickedly, and the ensuing world wars undid the achievements of a thousand years of Western civilization. We look back to 1914 in horror, and wonder how the leaders of the West could have been so pig-headed. Nonetheless, we are doing it again today.

 

That should be an object lesson for today’s Ukraine crisis. Vladimir Putin acted wickedly, and illegally, by invading Ukraine, but also rationally: Russia has an existential interest in keeping NATO away from his border. Russia will no more tolerate American missiles in Kyiv than the United States would tolerate Russian missiles in Cuba.

 

The United States could have averted a crisis by adhering to the Minsk II framework of local rule for the Russophone provinces of Eastern Ukraine within a sovereign Ukrainian state but chose instead to keep open Ukraine’s option to join NATO. That was rational, but also stupid: It backed Putin into a corner.

 

There is no excuse for Putin’s action, but there is an explanation that’s similar to one that applied to his forbears of 1914: Putin chose to attack before the West had the opportunity to arm Ukraine with sophisticated weapons that would raise the future cost of military action.

 

China, a far more powerful challenger than Russia, is watching Ukraine with a calculating eye. It expresses sympathy with Putin’s security concerns but chagrin at his military adventurism. It refrains from helping Russia to flout the sanctions that the West has imposed on Russia.

 

China has mechanisms in place to finance trade in its own currency, the RMB, and substitute for the SWIFT system that clears international banking transactions in Western currencies, but it does not want to provoke the West by mounting a direct challenge. It has called for a negotiated solution.

 

But China also looks at Ukraine through the lens of the Taiwan Strait. China has an existential interest in the One China policy, which states that Taiwan ultimately will be reunited with the mainland. China is not a national state but a multi-ethnic, polyglot empire, which was carved up into warring fiefdoms with the help of foreign intervention as recently as the 1930s. Any so-called rebel province threatens the stability of the Chinese state.

 

If Taiwan seeks a permanent break with the mainland, China will seize it by force. There is a parallel to Putin’s decision in Ukraine. If the West attempts to make Taiwan impregnable to Chinese invasion – what some call a “strategy of denial” – China likely will use force before it loses the option to do so.

 

Then we will be on a fast track to nuclear war, as Admiral James Stavridis, the former commander of the US Pacific Fleet, portrays in his thriller 2034. China probably can sink American aircraft carriers with surface-to-ship missiles.

 

In Chinese official media, there is a grim discussion of the parallel between Ukraine and Taiwan. We misjudged Putin, just as he misjudged us. No sanctions or denunciations will hold back the Russian Army. We should not misjudge China. Sometimes an uncomfortable status quo is infinitely preferable to a roll of the dice on peace or war.

 

https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/reliving-the-nightmare-of-1914/

Anonymous ID: cd2302 March 4, 2022, 7:21 a.m. No.15780445   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0491

>>15780419

True, but they would let it burn before anyone finds out the truth, Russia has been gathering all the info they need on Ukraine

 

The Nuclear disinfo has given Russia an edge now because they have receipts

Anonymous ID: cd2302 March 4, 2022, 7:45 a.m. No.15780613   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0622 >>0626 >>0629 >>0899

4 Mar, 2022 14:40

The Cabal jumping on

Putin should not be assassinated, Boris Johnson says

 

Russia’s president should be tried by an international court for his “horrific acts” instead, UK prime minister believes

Putin should not be assassinated, Boris Johnson saysP / Leon Neal

Britain’s prime minister does not support the idea of trying to kill Russian President Vladimir Putin, a spokesperson for Boris Johnson said on Friday. Asked by reporters whether he agrees with US Senator Lindsey Graham, who called for “somebody in Russia” to assassinate the country’s leader, the spokesperson firmly rejected the idea.

 

“No. We stand with the Ukrainian people in demanding the immediate end to the Russian invasion,” the spokesperson stated. “We have said before that Putin must be held to account before an international court for the horrific acts he has committed.”

 

The bizarre call was issued by the top senator on Wednesday, with Graham invoking the assassination of Roman dictator Julius Caesar and the botched plot to kill Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler as examples of what should be done in his opinion.

“Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?” Graham asked. “The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country – and the world – a great service.”

 

The open call for the assassination of the Russian president provoked fury in Moscow, with Russia’s Embassy in the US strongly condemning such statements, as well as demanding Washington to hold the official accountable for his remarks.

 

“The degree of Russophobia and hatred towards Russia is going through the roof in the United States. It is unbelievable that a senator from a country that preaches its moral values as a ‘guiding light’ for all of mankind could allow himself call for terrorism as a means to achieve Washington’s goals on the international stage,” Russia’s Ambassador in the US Anatoly Antonov said.

 

The hasty exchange came amid the Russian offensive in neighboring Ukraine, launched by Moscow last week. Explaining the decision to begin the large-scale military operation, Russia’s president said it was the only option left to protect the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Ukraine’s east. He also set out the goals of “demilitarizing” and “denazifying” the neighboring country.

 

Kiev said the attack was unprovoked, insisting it had not been seeking to retake Donetsk and Lugansk by force. The two republics split from Kiev back in 2014 in the aftermath of the Maidan coup, which ousted Ukraine’s government.

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/551234-johnson-putin-assassination-idea/

Anonymous ID: cd2302 March 4, 2022, 7:48 a.m. No.15780630   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0638 >>0899

4 Mar, 2022 14:39

 

Germany downplays extremists traveling to fight in Ukraine

 

Germany no longer apologizing for Nazi roots

Berlin suggested potential combatants could have their passports confiscated to prevent them from leaving the country

 

The German Interior Ministry has sought to downplay suggestions that right-wing extremists are traveling from the European nation to fight in Ukraine, saying these are only isolated cases.

 

“Significantly fewer” extremists have traveled from Germany to Ukraine than the 10 individuals reported, an Interior Ministry spokesperson said on Friday. They did not, however, specify how many confirmed cases there had been.

 

In a bid to prevent right-wing extremists from traveling to engage in combat operations in Ukraine, the spokesperson confirmed Germany is looking at ways to halt them, including taking away their passports.

 

As it stands, German law does not bar Ukrainian nationals or Germans Ukrainians from traveling to the country to fight against Russian forces amid the ongoing invasion.

 

The statement from Berlin comes after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said 16,000 foreign citizens have volunteered to fight against Russia, joining “the defense of Ukraine, Europe and the world” as part of an “international legion.”

 

Kiev has temporarily dropped visa requirements for any foreign citizen who wishes to travel to war-torn parts of the country and fight against approaching Russian forces.

 

Foreign citizens have supported Ukrainian forces since 2014, when separatists seized parts of the Donbass region in the east. Russia recognized the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk republics as independent states just days before beginning its military offensive last week.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/551240-germany-extremists-travel-ukraine/

Anonymous ID: cd2302 March 4, 2022, 7:51 a.m. No.15780647   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0899

4 Mar, 2022 14:38

HomeWorld News

NATO talks options but sees no place for own troops in Ukraine

 

The alliance should not have the bloc’s planes operating in Ukrainian airspace or boots on the ground, its secretary general said

 

NATO members discussed Ukraine’s pleas to establish a ‘no-fly zone’ over the country, but the alliance is determined not to engage directly in the military confrontation between Moscow and Kiev, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Friday, after a meeting of foreign ministers of the allies.

 

“NATO is a defense alliance. Our core task is to keep our 30 nations safe. We are not part of this conflict. And we have a responsibility to ensure it does not escalate and spread beyond Ukraine,” he said. “NATO is not seeking a war with Russia.”

 

That said, Stoltenberg added,the alliance has stepped up consultations with non-members Sweden and Finland, which are now taking part in all NATO events. It also ramped up support for Georgia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, he said.

 

The option of a ‘no-fly zone’, which Kiev has been requesting from NATO members, was “mentioned” during the meeting, Stoltenberg said, but member states “agreed that we should not have NATO planes operating over Ukrainian airspace or NATO troops on Ukrainian territory.”

 

A ‘no-fly zone’ would require NATO to shoot down Russian military aircraft involved in the Ukraine offensive, Stoltenberg pointed out. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned as he announced the invasion last week that any third party trying to intervene in the operation would have consequences “unlike anything they had in their history.” Many Western nations took it as a thinly-veiled threat to use nuclear weapons.

 

Stoltenberg claimed credit for training and arming tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops over the years, saying this allowed them to fend off the Russian attack now. Putin cited NATO’s creeping expansion into Ukraine as a major reason for ordering the attack in the first place. Russia for years said that dragging its western neighbor into NATO would cross a red line and that Russia would have to respond to what it views as an existential threat to its national security.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/551236-no-nato-warplanes-ukraine/