Connexion
Outside a court in Karlsruhe, Germany, on Thursday. Federal prosecutors based in the city said one of the men had considered a U.S. military base as one of several potential targets.
Rep. Thomas Massie said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is preparing to pass a rule for the foreign aid package using Democrats.
The post ‘Unprecedented’: Speaker Mike Johnson Moves to Pass Rule for Ukraine Aid Using Democrats appeared first on Breitbart.
The days of free and cheap riding are numbered.
The wailing is getting louder across Europe. Elites in Brussels and national capitals are clutching their pearls as they view American opinion polls. Their U.S. friends, the usual Masters of the Universe who dominate political and economic affairs, are reacting similarly.
Although the presidential election is more than six long months away and much can happen before November 5, they all are sharing nightmares featuring Donald Trump. Such is the consequence of spending the last eight decades treating Europe’s protection as America’s responsibility.
Europeans are only slowly waking up to reality. For instance, the British historian and journalist Max Hastings observed, “Some of us have repeatedly asserted that without America the Ukrainians could become toast. That proposition looks like it is being tested.” He didn’t blame America. Rather, he admitted that “there is also a realization that the United States has tired, probably forever, of leading and largely funding the defense of Europe.”
Then he criticized Europeans for lagging despite their professed fears of Russian aggression. He wrote “The Germans have discovered a €25 billion shortfall in their defense spending plan, overlaid on national economic stagnation. President Macron is shipping 100 howitzers, but these cannot make good his earlier refusal to back Ukraine.” That’s not all; leading states such as Italy and Spain still can’t be bothered.
Hastings was even tougher on his own nation, citing the ugly truth about its disappointing efforts: “Though successive British prime ministers have professed to embrace Ukraine, which is essentially our proxy in facing down Russian aggression, they have done almost nothing to sustain the supply of munitions, once the army’s cupboard was emptied.”
Indeed, he added, “since the end of the Cold War it has been the all-party fashion to treat defense not as a vital element in our polity but as an optional extra to the main business of government.” He targeted the Conservative Party, the home of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher: “Since 2010 the Tories have refused to make the necessary defense spending commitments.”
Also credit Hastings for admitting that the Europeans were warned about Russia’s likely response to NATO expansion: “It was recklessly insouciant to take no steps to prepare ourselves, both morally and militarily, to fight if the Russians responded with force.” He called for Europeans to step up: “Europe must send Kyiv yesterday every gun and shell it can purchase—we cannot manufacture the hardware ourselves in real time.”
Finally, and most important, he acknowledged that the continent’s residents must work hard to protect themselves: “If we wish to avoid having to fight another big war we must create a credible military deterrent in which nuclear weapons are the least relevant, though still necessary, component. Even granted the will, which is problematic, Europe requires a decade of enhanced spending to make itself remotely capable of self-defense, in the absence of the U.S.”
Still, the situation is a bit less dire than Hastings suggests. He overestimates the danger facing Europe. Although Russia’s Vladimir Putin is ruthless, the latter has shown little interest in conquest during his quarter century in power. Indeed, he began his presidency friendly to the U.S. and Europe; he was the first foreign leader to call George W. Bush after 9/11 and gave an accommodating address to the German Bundestag shortly thereafter.
Moreover, Putin’s much-cited remark about the Soviet collapse did not suggest recreating the Russian empire, as commonly claimed. He declared,
Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.
Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly. Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged the country’s integrity. Oligarchic groups—possessing absolute control over information channels—served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty began to be seen as the norm. And all this was happening against the backdrop of a dramatic economic downturn, unstable finances, and the paralysis of the social sphere.
Far from backing the return of the Soviet Communist Party, he contended that “the time that our young democracy…was precisely the period when the significant developments took place in Russia. Our society was generating not only the energy of self-preservation, but also the will for a new and free life.” His discussion of how “to find our own path in order to build a democratic, free and just society and state” looks ironic in retrospect, but nothing in the speech suggested reconstituting the USSR.
Of course, his attitude hardened over time, but for obvious reasons reflected in his famous talk at the 2007 Munich Security Conference. He highlighted what faithless and dishonest allied officials subsequently sought to deny, Moscow’s displeasure over NATO expansion and Washington’s aggressive military policy. U.S. presidents, secretaries of defense, and secretaries of state knew that they were recklessly crossing a red line for Putin and most of Russia’s top political leadership. For instance, in 2008 intelligence officer Fiona Hill, more recently with the Trump NSC, and U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Burns, currently CIA Director, warned the George W. Bush administration that NATO expansion was likely to spark a violent response.
Two years ago, Putin made the decision for war, for which he bears ultimate responsibility. Yet he is no Hitler. Russia has not found Ukraine easy to conquer. It would be difficult for Moscow to swallow its victim whole. Moreover, Putin acted out his explicit threats, not the West’s imagined fears. Never has Putin or the rest of the leadership shown interest in conquering the Baltic States, let alone more of Europe. The question would be, To what end? Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was criminal, but he did so for reasons known in the West for decades. What would he gain from attempting to overrun the rest of Europe? When asked by Tucker Carlson if he might invade Poland, Putin replied, “Only in one case, if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia, or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don’t have any interest.”
Of course, Europeans should not trust Putin with their continent’s peace and stability. However, they—not America—should make their security their priority.
An important issue raised by Hastings is whether Europe should develop a continental nuclear deterrent. The U.S. promised to use nukes to defend Europe during the Cold War and the Soviets never tested American resolve. Whether or not the continent was worth the risk to the U.S. then, it is not now. Observed the Wall Street Journal’s Yaroslav Trofimov: “Would an American president, especially a re-elected Donald Trump, be willing to risk nuclear war for Helsinki, Tallinn or Warsaw? And if not, could Europe’s own two nuclear powers—France and, to a lesser extent, the UK—provide enough deterrence of their own?”
Both Paris and London have nukes, but their forces are national and independent. Germans have begun to debate contributing to a European arsenal or developing their own. Even the Poles might be on board with a Eurobomb. Friendly proliferation has obvious drawbacks but may be the best practicable option. Today Russia relies on nuclear parity to make up for conventional inferiority compared to America. Europe could do the same vis-à-vis Moscow.
Nevertheless, as the Europeans move ahead, they also should seek a future in which they will be safer and more prosperous, which means reaching an understanding with Russia over a new security structure. Although European officials routinely demonize Putin, they share responsibility with him for the war. Fighting Moscow to the last Ukrainian is not the best means to establish long-term stability and peace.
Kiev’s determination to battle on is understandable and, indeed, courageous, but Ukrainians should remember that the allies have consistently played them false. NATO made a commitment in 2008 that no European government and no subsequent US administration was prepared to keep. For 14 years, every alliance member along with the Brussels bureaucracy lied to Kiev, falsely insisting that they looked forward to Ukraine joining the alliance. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin continued the deception when he visited Kiev in late 2021 in the lead-up to Russia’s invasion. At the same time, the Biden administration refused to negotiate with Moscow when a commitment not to include Ukraine might have kept the peace.
Shortly after Russia’s invasion Washington and London apparently discouraged Kiev from negotiating with Moscow over the same issue, when the conflict might have been ended with relatively modest casualties and destruction. Moreover, NATO members continued to promise alliance membership to Kiev; at last July’s NATO summit Austin said that he had “no doubt” Ukraine would join. Yet the allies steadfastly refuse to enter the war when their support is most needed.
A couple weeks ago Secretary of State Antony Blinken reassured Kiev, “We’re also here at NATO to talk about the summit that’s upcoming in the summer in Washington, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Alliance. Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Our purpose of the summit is to help build a bridge to that membership and to create a clear pathway for Ukraine moving forward.”
But no one expects a formal commitment this year or next; realistically, Kiev shouldn’t expect one this decade or next. Ultimately Ukrainians will have to make their own deal with Russia. And that will turn out better if done sooner rather than later.
It is Europe’s turn. Observed Hastings: “If Putin or China’s President Xi today demands: ‘How many divisions has Britain?’—or, for that matter, Europe—the truthful answer deserves the scorn it must inspire in both tyrants.” Europeans should act like grownups and take over responsibility for their own defense.
The post Europe is Starting to Wake Up to Needing Defense—Including a Nuclear Deterrent appeared first on The American Conservative.
If you’re going to make an end-run around your own party, shouldn’t you at least give us a reason?
What’s the point of Mike Johnson?
The House GOP decided Kevin McCarthy needed to go. Fine. There were plenty of good arguments for that decision, including the very fundamental point that McCarthy’s mouth wrote checks to the party that Frank Luntz’s body couldn’t cash. That’s no way to run a railroad. Sayonara, Mac.
Who could forget the tragicomedy of the efforts to replace him? The placeholder speaker, Patrick McHenry, a little man in bowties and a really heartrending victim of tailoring malpractice, waving the gavel around like a kid at the carnival high-striker. The parade of proposed replacements: Steve Scalise, sort of the presumptive next in line save for the facts that he’s a moron and has got blood cancer. Doug Emmer. Jim Jordan. Mike Johnson was picked after Jordan lost his third round of votes. He was a perfect unity candidate: He had never said or done anything of note. (To quote some wise men discussing another political tabula rasa: “We have no inkling of his past!” “Correct, and that is an asset. A man’s past can cripple him.”)
Johnson seems like a nice man. (A difference from the visibly cretinous McCarthy.) He seems like one of the handful of national politicos who actually takes something approaching orthodox Christianity seriously, which has earned him plenty of ire (much of it very weird) in the mainstream press. He has borne up gracefully under all that, and, for that, we’re cheering him.
Unfortunately, while the absence of a past can be an asset, the absence of the present and future is not so good. As you might infer from the conditions of his elevation, things are a little contentious in Congress right now. A sizable portion of the Republican caucus has noticed that we’re spending rather a lot of money, and thinks maybe we should spend less, and is (for the first time in quite a while) willing to kick up a ruckus about it. Our southern border has undergone Aufhebung. The Fourth Amendment, which underwent Aufhebung quite some time ago, is up for grabs again with FISA renewal. Through our clients abroad, we are running a couple of wars of decreasing popularity and unclear value.
In the face of crisis, division, and uncertainty, you need a leader of men who can articulate a forceful program—or at least can mollify everyone a little by looking like he knows what he’s doing. Has that been Johnson? Well, not really.
Take his stance on military aid, the item at the top of everyone’s mind this week. Johnson is anxious to get the money out there to our foreign clients. In this, he is hardly alone—but also hardly unopposed. We’re a little leery of rubber-stamping anything touching the fisc, but might excuse it in cases where an expenditure is completely uncontroversial. (So far as we can tell, not much of the country is clamoring to stop funding military salaries or highway maintenance.) As of February, roughly half of his own party’s voters thought the U.S. was sending too much aid to Ukraine in particular.
Are there perhaps deep principles behind Johnson’s position? Does he, statesmanlike, think he’s doing the right thing, and damn the torpedoes? If he is, he’s doing a very good job of keeping it quiet. Johnson took the gavel last October. His congressional office has issued, by my count, 17 press releases since then, including the announcement of his speakership; the speaker’s office has issued 111 press releases. Not a single one has laid out the speaker’s case for sending military aid to other supposedly sovereign nations: not a good argument, not a bad argument, not even a pro forma argument; not for Taiwan, not for Israel, not for Ukraine. (There is, however, a precis of a fact sheet justifying his recent flip-flop on FISA—a real polishing-the-turd exercise for his comms staff, to whom we extend our real sympathies.) Hiding behind the fiction of “loans” is no remedy. In fact, it makes it worse: It shows embarrassment and the attendant desire to pull a quick one. Do you call this leadership?
The point of a party system is to give voters a choice—not necessarily a very large set of choices, but at least the bare binary of “X” versus “Not X.” When a speaker uses opposition support to pass through legislation against half his own party’s wishes—and against his own promises—something has gone badly wrong in the system. When he does it without even articulating his position, well, that’s something worse than badly wrong.
In Britain’s 1972 push to join the European Economic Community, which was in short order transmogrified into the European Union, a sinister compact developed between the leadership of the Conservative government and the Labour opposition to move through the membership vote outside the courses of debate appropriate for such a weighty and controversial decision. (This effort was opposed primarily by two members, the Tories’ Enoch Powell and Labour’s Michael Foot, an unlikely combination on the face of it.) The European Communities Bill affair left a bad taste in the voters’ mouths, and they punished the Tories for it (among other sins). The consequences of that skulduggery have bedeviled British governments for the 50 years since. Johnson is inviting a similar dysfunction into our own public life, and without even making his case to the American people.
Government by men with bad ideas and even bad morals we can endure; government by invertebrates is intolerable. So again we ask: What’s the point of this guy?
The post Mike Johnson Should Grow a Spine or Leave appeared first on The American Conservative.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) introduced an amendment to a supplemental funding bill for Ukraine that would require members of Congress who vote "in favor" to enlist in the Ukrainian military.
The post Marjorie Taylor Greene Introduces Amendment to Ukraine Supplemental Bill: Members Who Vote ‘in Favor’ Required to Join Ukrainian Military appeared first on Breitbart.
The bills in the House's foreign aid package, which will be up for a vote Saturday, would appropriate a combined $95 billion for Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific, with a lion's share of $60.84 billion for Ukraine.
The post Breakdown: Foreign Aid Bills Would Send $95 Billion to Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific appeared first on Breitbart.
The inside story of how House Speaker Mike Johnson was flip-flopped on Ukraine aid starts with his top policy adviser, a former lobbyist whose clients include a number of major companies who have issued corporate statements indicating some kind of interest in the war.
The post Exclusive — Mike Johnson’s Top Policy Adviser Is Former Lobbyist: Clients Have Corporate Interest in Ukraine War appeared first on Breitbart.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) had kind words for far-left CNN host Jake Tapper Wednesday after the cameras appeared to turn dark.
The post Mike Johnson Praises CNN’s Jake Tapper Off-Air: ‘You’re Always Fair’ appeared first on Breitbart.
A delegation from Ukraine arrived in Taiwan on Sunday, hoping to secure assistance from Taiwanese firms to rebuild in the aftermath of the Russian invasion.
The post Ukraine Delegation Visits Taiwan Seeking Support for Postwar Reconstruction appeared first on Breitbart.
Sen. Rand Paul blessed Rep. Thomas Massie's move to oust Speaker Mike Johnson, saying that Republicans need someone with "courage."
The post Rand Paul: Thomas Massie ‘Doing the Right Thing’ to Oust Mike Johnson as Speaker appeared first on Breitbart.
Rep. Mike Gallagher's (R-WI) betrayal of his constituents will continue at least one day longer.
The post The Betrayal Continues: Mike Gallagher Postpones Quit Date to Help Deep State Pass Ukraine Aid Scheme appeared first on Breitbart.
President Joe Biden announced he “strongly” supports the House foreign aid package as Republicans rapidly turn on Speaker Mike Johnson over efforts to combine several supplemental bills into a single rule with a lack of border security legislation in the package.
The post Biden ‘Strongly’ Supports Johnson’s $95 Billion Foreign Aid Package appeared first on Breitbart.
A Ukrainian soldier after firing a rocket-propelled grenade at a Russian position in the Serebrianka Forest.
The site of a building destroyed by a Russian missile strike, according to Ukrainian officials, in Chernihiv, Ukraine, on Wednesday.
Mike Johnson announced that the House will vote Saturday night on a foreign aid package that includes billions of dollars for Ukraine.
The post Mike Johnson Triples Down on Mortgaging American Future to Pay Off Ukrainian Leader Volodymyr Zelensky appeared first on Breitbart.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) on Wednesday accused Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) of repeating Biden administration talking points after the Ohio senator warned that a McCaul-backed bill would hamstring a future Trump presidency's ability to end the Ukraine war.
The post Globalist Republican Mike McCaul in Unhinged Attack on J.D. Vance over Ukraine Aid appeared first on Breitbart.
The exact cost of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine remains opaque and hard to assess. Still, claims continue to vary wildly, from as little as 31,000 Ukrainian dead according to Kyiv, to as many as half a million Russian “casualties”. There
The post Report: 50,000 Russian Soldiers ‘Confirmed Dead’ in Ukraine, While Kyiv Claims Nearly Half a Million Casualties appeared first on Breitbart.
A member of Ukraine’s 17th Tank Brigade near the front line in the Donetsk region in January.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) told Breitbart News exclusively that she is prepared to force House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) out of his position with a vote to vacate the chair if the Speaker does not willingly resign the position.
The post Exclusive – MTG on Mike Johnson Speakership: ‘It’s Over – He’s Just the Only One Who Hasn’t Acknowledged It’ appeared first on Breitbart.
House Republicans’ dissatisfaction with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is rapidly growing as Reps. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Jim Banks (R-IN) are sharing their frustrations about what Banks called “insanity” in Johnson’s foreign aid framework, which includes over three times as much money for Ukraine as it does for Israel while neglecting the U.S. Southern border.
The post House Dissatisfaction with Johnson Explodes over Foreign Aid ‘Insanity’ that Neglects Southern Border appeared first on Breitbart.
Polling from the Heritage Foundation shows that swing-state voters are increasingly tired of America's endless funding of Ukraine.
The post Nolte: Swing-State Voters Sour on Endless Ukraine Funding appeared first on Breitbart.
State of the Union: Marjorie Taylor Greene is no longer alone—she gained a crucial ally on Tuesday in her campaign to oust Johnson. The Speaker may not last the week.
Rep. Thomas Massie has announced he will be cosponsoring Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s motion to vacate House Speaker Mike Johnson.
“I just told Mike Johnson in conference that I’m cosponsoring the Motion to Vacate that was introduced by @RepMTG,” Massie posted on Twitter. “He should pre-announce his resignation (as Boehner did), so we can pick a new Speaker without ever being without a GOP Speaker.”
Just prior to Massie’s Twitter announcement, Jake Sherman of Punchbowl News scooped Massie’s support of the motion to vacate. According to Sherman, “[Massie] told Johnson in front of the entire House Republican Conference that he should clean the barn and resign or else he’ll be vacated.”
NEW — TOM MASSIE said in a closed House Republican meeting that he’s going to cosponsor the motion to vacate, per several sources in the room.
— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) April 16, 2024
Previously, after Johnson jammed through a $1.2 trillion, 1,000-page minibus that funded the government through fiscal year 2024, Greene filed a motion to vacate. While that motion has so far remained in the hopper, Massie’s endorsement of Greene’s motion means she could trigger the motion by asking for privilege on the House floor at a moment’s notice.
Meanwhile, Johnson is planning to pass four different foreign aid supplemental spending bills under a single rule, a procedural maneuver called a MIRV. If Johnson goes with a MIRV, the House will vote on the rule, then vote on the four different packages. Then the packages that pass will be bundled together in a single bill presented to the Senate.
Meanwhile, Johnson has (for now) told House GOP members there will be an amendment process. Conservatives are going to test just how open that process will be, however. Last night, Rep. Matt Gaetz said he’d like to offer HR 2 as an amendment, which would effectively kill the legislation in both chambers—Johnson, once again, is relying on Democratic votes to get legislation out of the House. Without such an amendment, the aid package will not address border security—the number one issue thus far in the 2024 campaign cycle.
For now, Capitol Hill is playing the waiting game: What exactly will each one of these bills include? Text is expected to be circulated today. What amendments will Johnson allow? Members of Congress simply don’t know.
Meanwhile, Speaker Johnson maintains that he will not be stepping down:
JOHNSON JUST NOW: "I am not resigning."
— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) April 16, 2024
It’s fitting that Massie invoked the name of former speaker John Boehner. Boehner’s slow downfall started with a MIRV on trade legislation. Johnson’s swift downfall could end with one.
The post Massie Kicks Effort to Oust Speaker Johnson Into High Gear appeared first on The American Conservative.
The White House has rejected an Israel standalone bill. Will the Speaker send one out anyway?
The House, under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson, could vote in the coming days on an aid package to Israel. But will Ukraine aid be attached?
If the White House has its way, the answer is yes. “We are opposed to a stand-alone bill that would just work on Israel,” White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby told members of the media Monday. Johnson, however, reportedly told House Republicans at a conference meeting Monday evening that Ukraine and Israel aid should be separated. Is Biden willing to use the veto to get his way, and if he is, will that force Johnson to reconsider?
“House Republicans and the Republican Party understand the necessity of standing with Israel,” Johnson told Fox News on Sunday. Previously, the House had advanced two aid bills for Israel—in fact, Johnson’s first legislative act as Speaker was passing a stand-alone aid bill for Israel.
“We’re going to try again this week, and the details of that package are being put together. Right now, we’re looking at the options and all these supplemental issues,” the speaker continued, signaling an openness to keeping aid to Ukraine and Israel bundled.
Over the weekend, Iran launched a strike with more than 300 missiles and drones in response to an Israeli strike on an Iranian consulate in Damascus that killed 13, including senior military officials. Very few of the Iranian missiles and drones ended up hitting their targets; Israel, with assistance from the U.S., Britain, and France, shot down most. The Jordanians, critics of Israel’s campaign in Gaza, also shot down drones and missiles that entered its airspace. Iran gave ample prior warning of its retaliatory attack and used slow-moving drones, suggesting its actions were meant to be non-escalatory in nature. Despite the apparent scale, Iran expected most of its projectiles would be shot down.
After the Senate failed to strike a deal that would provide supplemental aid to Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific in exchange for border security, the Senate passed a $95 billion aid package without border security provisions in February. Johnson has refused to take up the legislation, but has repeatedly stated he wants to create an aid package for Ukraine and Israel that won’t cost him the speaker’s gavel.
On Sunday, in the wake of the Iranian attack, Johnson spoke with President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The group urged Johnson to bring the $95 billion supplemental, nearly two-thirds of which is funding for Ukraine, to the floor.
But Johnson would most likely have to bring the $95 billion package to the floor under suspension of the rules, and it’s unclear whether two-thirds of the House would be willing to sign on. While the weekend’s attack has added urgency, Johnson faces a House GOP growing increasingly skeptical about America’s involvement in Ukraine and a House Democratic conference that increasingly questions U.S. support for Israel. Threading the needle, and doing so while keeping his job, is going to be difficult for Johnson.
For its part, the Senate has refused to consider House-passed aid packages too. The first Israel aid bill Johnson passed out of the House offset the costs via spending cuts, most of which from Biden’s IRS expansion.
In the past few weeks, Johnson has been flirting with various ways to offset future expenditures on the war in Ukraine for his future aid package, such as providing Ukraine aid in the form of a loan or using the REPO Act to seize Russian assets.
“I think these are ideas that I think can get consensus, and that’s what we’ve been working through,” Johnson said in the wake of a Friday meeting with former President Donald Trump, who is more comfortable with the idea of Ukraine aid as a loan. “We’ll send our package. We’ll put something together and send it to the Senate and get these obligations completed.”
While Johnson’s decision to separate Israel and Ukraine aid is aimed primarily at shoring up support from the more conservative wing of the conference, some House Republicans, such as House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul, believe the conflicts are intertwined. “What happened in Israel last night happens in Ukraine every night,” McCaul said on CBS’s “Face The Nation.”
What happens with the impending aid package remains to be seen. That doesn’t mean Johnson’s House will be idle, however. Johnson is preparing a legislative barrage against Iran in the coming week. The speaker is putting 17 bills about Iran and Israel on the floor—11 of which will proceed under suspension of the rules.
The post Will Ukraine Actually Be a Part of Mike Johnson’s Aid Package? appeared first on The American Conservative.
A boy rides a donkey near one of the batteries of Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system in the southern Negev desert on Sunday.
Israel shooting down "99 per cent" of missiles shows what it possible when a nation has the full support of its allies, Zelensky said.
The post Israel Attack Illustrates Why West Must Send Ukraine More Weapons, Says Kyiv appeared first on Breitbart.
An overwhelming majority of Republicans find former President Donald Trump more trustworthy than the news media when it comes to information on the Ukraine and Russia conflict.
The post Poll: Majority of Republicans Find Donald Trump More Trustworthy Than Media on Ukraine-Russia appeared first on Breitbart.
A protest against the Alternative for Germany party, or AfD, in January in Rostock, Germany. It was one of many around the country.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said he will be pushing aid for Israel and Ukraine this week as part of a national security package he has been working on for several months.
The post House Speaker Mike Johnson Will Push Aid for Israel, Ukraine this Week appeared first on Breitbart.
“We’re going to try again this week,” Speaker Mike Johnson said on Sunday about voting on a bill to aid Israel.
Ukrainian border guards patrolling along the Tysa River, facing Romania, in Tyachiv, Ukraine. The Romanian authorities say more than 6,000 men have turned up on their side of the river since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
In Kyiv, Ukraine, coffee kiosks staffed by trained baristas serving tasty mochas for less than $2 have become a fixture of the streetscape.
Representative Chuck Edwards, Republican of North Carolina, is willing to join Democrats to approve more aid for Ukraine.
Mike Johnson is mired in a political minefield. What is most likely to cause the House GOP to implode?
“Mike Johnson, he’s literally turned into Mitch McConnell’s twin and worse. He’s a Democrat…. There’s not even any daylight between him and Nancy Pelosi at this point.” Harsh words from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Currently, Greene has a motion to vacate Johnson’s speakership in the hopper. Greene filed her motion to vacate on March 22 when the house was forced to vote on (and passed) a 1,012-page minibus with a price tag of $1.2 trillion. House members had less than 36 hours to read the bill or be blamed with a partial government shutdown. Just 101 Republicans, far short of the majority of the conference, voted for the minibus.
“Remember, last Congress we were all complaining: ‘We can’t even read these thousands of pages before we have to vote on them.’ We’re now back to the House of hypocrites, and I’m so sick and tired of it,” Greene said before filing her motion to vacate. “Why throw out a speaker for supposedly breaking the rules, and now we have a new speaker that is really breaking all the rules. So like, what changed?”
Certainly, a lot could change in the next few weeks if Greene decides to force a vote on the motion to vacate. Between FISA Section 702 reauthorization and Ukraine aid, Johnson finds himself in a political minefield—one false step, and Greene could blow up his speakership.
But where are the mines, exactly? They’re difficult to sniff out, but Greene provided a window into her thinking on a potential motion to vacate in a Dear Colleague letter circulated to Republican House members on Tuesday. “I will not tolerate our elected Republican Speaker Mike Johnson serving the Democrats and the Biden administration and helping them achieve their policies that are destroying our country,” Greene wrote. “He is throwing our own razor-thin majority into chaos by not serving his own GOP conference that elected him.”
“I will not tolerate this type of Republican ‘leadership,’” Greene continued. Making reference to the fights over FISA and Ukraine aid, Green claimed, “This has been a complete and total surrender to, if not complete and total lockstep with, the Democrats’ agenda that has angered our Republican base so much and given them very little reason to vote for a Republican House majority.”
“And no, electing a new Republican Speaker will not give the majority to the Democrats,” Greene wrote, preempting rebukes if she does decide to go forward with the motion to vacate. “That only happens if more Republicans retire early, or Republicans actually vote for Hakeem Jeffries.”
Neither the FISA or Ukraine aid fight seem to be trending in Johnson’s direction. On Wednesday, 19 Republican lawmakers went against Johnson in a procedural vote to move forward on FISA reauthorization legislation.
The vote against FISA came in the wake of a Wednesday post on Truth Social from former President Donald Trump: “KILL FISA, IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS. THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!!!” on his Truth Social account. Though Trump’s campaign was spied upon using a different FISA authority (not 702) and some members of the corporate media are claiming that the 19 Republicans who stood against the vote to proceed are blindly doing so at Trump’s behest, the battle lines were clearly drawn much earlier in the week. Surely, Trump brought further attention to the issue and put Republicans in the pocket of the intelligence agencies on the back foot by forcing them to answer hard questions from the grassroots, but by no means was Trump’s weighing in on the topic the deciding factor. (Side note: see how the intelligence agencies, corporate media, and establishment work together?)
Johnson has been working for months to reconcile the divide over 702 in the GOP conference, embodied by the House Intelligence and House Judiciary Committees. The House Judiciary Committee wants reforms to increase transparency and accountability in the FISA process, as well as provisions that would require FISA warrants for agencies to sift through information of U.S. citizens caught up in foreign surveillance and ban the government from buying U.S. persons data from private companies.
Johnson tried to split the baby by taking a FISA reauthorization bill from the Judiciary Committee’s Laurel Lee, a representative from Florida, with some but not all of the reforms. First, Johnson prevented, and would prevent any future amendment, on banning data sales from private companies to the U.S. government—a red line for the Intelligence Committee headed by Rep. Mike Turner. FISA warrant provisions, arguably the biggest priority of the Judiciary Committee, were also made part of the amendment process and not included in the bill’s text.
Johnson, before he was speaker, was in favor of FISA reforms, like warrant provisions, that the House Judiciary Committee proposed. As now-Speaker Johnson devised this plan, he seemed ambivalent at first, but has increasingly soured on warrant provisions. Eventually, Johnson came out fully against warrant provisions, claiming classified briefings given to him as speaker by the intelligence agencies gave him a “different perspective.”
Speaker Mike Johnson elaborates on his FISA flip flop from when he was a rank and file member of the House, explaining that after receiving classified briefings he has a “different perspective.” pic.twitter.com/mrLj9ouEji
— Haley Talbot (@haleytalbotcnn) April 10, 2024
No warrant provisions guaranteed, no deal, House conservatives suggest. Leaving the warrant provisions up to the amendment process with an adversarial speaker is too big of a risk. Now, its leg-fare against Johnson’s FISA proposal. House conservatives are trying to force open the amendment process to loosen Johnson’s grip on the process.
“The Speaker of the House put his finger on the scale, against the amendment. And that pretty much is the story,” Rep. Chip Roy of Texas told POLITICO.
Johnson is running out of time to find a deal before Section 702 expires on April 19. Without a deal, Johnson will likely bring a clean reauthorization, which will find broad uniparty support, to the floor. Another vote that potentially courts more Democratic support and less than a majority of the GOP conference could imperil Johnson’s speakership.
But it seems there has been a provisional agreement between the pro- and anti-FISA factions. Johnson has negotiated with conservatives a FISA reauthorization that would expire in two years. They’re betting on Trump becoming president in November. The next FISA renewal will need his signature.
Greene was not among those who voted no on the procedural vote, but she has hinted her support for the final FISA reauthorization is contingent on warrant provisions.
“We do not believe in warrantless spying on the American people, especially when this bill carves out the ability for Congress to be notified when a member of Congress is going to be looked at through the FISA court,” Greene told members of the media. “That’s completely unfair. The same thing should apply for the American people. But Mike Johnson doesn’t have the trust of the conference. That’s become very clear.”
Johnson’s new two-year FISA reauthorization plan does not include warrant provisions.
Greene met Johnson on Wednesday afternoon—the first time the pair met since she filed her motion to vacate. “I got a lot of excuses,” Greene told members of the media after leaving the meeting. “We didn’t walk out with a deal.”
What’s more likely to cause Greene to trigger her motion to vacate Johnson, however, is if Johnson decides to go forward with Ukraine aid.
If Johnson moves forward with Ukraine aid, it would be one of “the most egregious things he could do,” Greene said. Currently, Johnson is working on an Ukraine aid package expected to be worth $60 billion—the same level of funding for Ukraine provided by the Senate’s previously passed supplemental. Johnson, to maximize Democrat votes, is toying with decoupling Ukraine aid from aid to Israel. But to keep some Republican votes so that a majority of the GOP conference supports the package, Johnson is exploring making some of the aid a loan or using the REPO Act to seize Russian assets to fund further U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Chances are any Ukraine funding Johnson hopes to bring to the floor will also be under suspension of the rules. In this case, it’s a guarantee that Johnson fails to secure a majority of the House GOP’s support and a majority of the support for the package comes from Democrats.
“Let me tell you, when he forces that vote, again, under suspension with no amendments, and funds Ukraine and people find out how angry their constituents are about it, that’s going to move the needle even more,” towards a motion to vacate, Green said. “I’m not saying I have a red line or a trigger, and I’m not saying I don’t have a red line or trigger. And I think that’s just where I’m at right now. But I’m going to tell you right now: Funding Ukraine is probably one of the most egregious things that he can do.”
Johnson might have an unexpected savior, however: Donald Trump. On Friday, Johnson and Trump are expected to give a joint news conference during an election integrity event hosted at Mar-a-Lago. Trump is reportedly displeased at Greene’s maneuvering against Johnson. One MAGA world insider even went so far as to say Greene’s motion to vacate is “100 percent distraction. Unwanted. And just stupid.”
“We’re not going to get trapped into this cycle of bullshit that comes out of members of the House,” the Trump insider claimed.
“It’s fair to say we don’t think she’s being constructive,” another person close to Trump told POLITICO. “It’s no way to run a party; it’s no way to run a House. You can’t work in that environment.”
The bottom line: “The internal fighting is not appreciated by [Trump].”
So, Johnson is heading to Mar-a-Lago to not only beat the war drums for Trump’s reelection effort. The two are expected to talk FISA and Ukraine, and potentially do some horse trading on these issues to protect Johnson’s speakership. Over the course of his 2024 campaign, Trump has balked at being labeled “conservative,” opting instead for “common sense.” The former president has always been a pragmatist and dealmaker at heart—his pragmatic streak has been on full display when it comes to the issue of abortion as of late. But is he willing to make a deal to protect Johnson when two of the former president’s key issues—war in Ukraine and the weaponization of the federal government—are on the line and the biggest—border security—goes unaddressed?
Even then, will it be enough to save Johnson. Greene says maybe not; she’s “not backing off at all.”
This story has been updated with information about the prospective two-year reauthorization deal.
The post Inside MTG’s MTV appeared first on The American Conservative.
Ukrainian military recruits training in Kyiv in October.
As NATO celebrates its 75th anniversary, the U.S. should tell Europe it is on its own if it provokes a war with Russia.
NATO is celebrating its 75th year as its members fight a brutal proxy war with Russia over Ukraine. The alliance marked its anniversary in Brussels last week and will hold a formal summit in July in Washington.
That session could be contentious. Fears of a Ukrainian collapse are increasing, and an increasing number of policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic believe the alliance should go all in for Kiev, assuming away the risks of a broader conventional and potential nuclear war.
France’s President Emmanuel Macron played the Napoleon card, suggesting that allies deploy troops to Ukraine. While meeting with his European counterparts, he opined, “There’s no consensus today to send in an official, endorsed manner troops on the ground. But in terms of dynamics, nothing can be ruled out.” When criticized, he doubled down: “For us to decide today to be weak, to decide today that we would not respond, is being defeated already.”
Macron imagines that putting allied troops in Ukrainian cities would immunize the latter from attack, deterring Moscow without war. He drew support from officials in Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland. More serious governments, including the Biden administration, rejected the idea. After all, Americans would bear the principal burden and pay the greatest cost of a broader war.
Nevertheless, as Warsaw pointed out, some members already have deployed troops to Ukraine. Others are threatening to act on their own. Reported the Wall Street Journal: “Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico told a televised briefing that preparatory materials he had received for the summit sent shivers down his spine. The documents, he said, suggested that a number of NATO and EU countries were considering sending troops to Ukraine. Fico added: ‘I cannot say for what purpose and what they should be doing there’.” The author Edward Luttwak helpfully offered detailed military missions for the transatlantic alliance:
NATO countries will soon have to send soldiers to Ukraine, or else accept catastrophic defeat. The British and French, along with the Nordic countries, are already quietly preparing to send troops—both small elite units and logistics and support personnel—who can remain far from the front. The latter could play an essential role by releasing their Ukrainians counterparts for retraining in combat roles. NATO units could also relieve Ukrainians currently tied up in the recovery and repair of damaged equipment, and could take over the technical parts of existing training programs for new recruits. These NATO soldiers might never see combat—but they don’t have to in order to help Ukraine make the most of its own scarce manpower.
Whether or not such personnel went mano-a-mano with Moscow’s troops, they would be actively involved in the war and thus valid targets. Given Russia’s extensive missile and drone attacks, allied casualties would be inevitable. In that event, Macron said, neither the U.S. nor NATO need be involved, but that is easier said now than done then, with bodies being shipped back to European nations and possibly America. An expanded conventional and possible nuclear war could scarcely be avoided.
Others freely advocate direct intervention in combat, though for nominally defensive purposes. For instance, retired Col. Alexander Crowther suggested sending personnel to run anti-missile batteries: “You’d have to be really clear to Putin [and] say, ‘We’re sending people to Ukraine, they’re not going to be doing offensive combat against you’.” Alas, Moscow isn’t likely to respect that distinction. Allied troops would be actively engaging Russian forces and could scarcely be ignored by Moscow. In that case, Crowther would be inviting massive retaliation.
Yet some European and American officials would go even further. They have urged deploying aerial and naval armadas to sweep the skies and seas of Russian forces, intervening more broadly “to decisively turn the military tide,” and even employing nuclear weapons against what they appear to perceive as the Mongols reborn. These would risk World War III, putting thousands and perhaps millions of lives in the balance. Proponents of such measures appear more than a little deranged.
Indeed, what ties such proposals together is that only Washington has sufficient power to overcome Moscow. NATO members which barely pretend to field a military are currently plotting how to effectively borrow U.S. forces. The very structure of the transatlantic alliance, treating all members as equals, encourages dangerous flights of fancy by ivory tower warriors across the continent. Consider the complaints of Eastern Europeans that they deserve to fill NATO’s top spot, the secretary generalship, for which the Netherlands’ former Prime Minister Mark Rutte is the strong favorite to replace retiring Jens Stoltenberg. Both Estonia’s prime minister and Romania’s president considered running. The former asked, “Are we equals or are we not equals? So these questions still remain.” Artis Pabriks, former defense minister of Latvia, complained that “we feel that we were not consulted enough.”
Estonia may be a lovely tourist destination, but with only 7,100 men and women under arms it is but a rounding error in any conflict with Russia. Tallinn shouldn’t oversee anything military in NATO, except maybe providing an honor guard for visiting dignitaries in Brussels. Latvia has even less credibility with just 6,600 people under arms. At least Romania, which fields a military of 69,900, is more serious.
In fact, few governments in Europe look good. The former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves asked of Rutte, “What moral credibility does this guy have?” Rotterdam has chronically failed to hit NATO’s two percent of GDP target. Moreover, the Netherlands fields fewer than half as many soldiers as Romania. Italy and Spain have sizable economies but risible militaries. Germany’s long-term commitment is uncertain at best.
Even the United Kingdom, with Europe’s best military, is not ready for war with Russia. London is shrinking its army as it trims plans to increase military outlays. Sky News’ Deborah Haynes observed that “the armed forces would run out of ammunition ‘in a few days’ if called upon to fight”; “the UK lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring”; and “it would take five to 10 years for the army to be able to field a war-fighting division of some 25,000 to 30,000 troops backed by tanks, artillery and helicopters.”
Only slightly less reckless than entering the war are proposals to bring Ukraine into NATO—which most members have continued to reject despite the 2008 Bucharest declaration endorsing the inclusion of Kiev and Tbilisi. Indeed no one in NATO wanted to defend either country, so members lied for the next 14 years about their willingness to invite the two governments to join. Alas, having previously been misled about NATO expansion, Moscow took the prospect seriously, which ultimately animated Vladimir Putin’s invasion decision. Even then the alliance wasn’t prepared for nuclear war over Ukraine and stayed out. Nor are most members prepared for such a conflict today, despite the increasing attempt by Eastern Europeans to drag America into the war.
Yet Secretary of State Antony Blinken continues to encourage Ukraine while refusing to act, declaring: “Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Our purpose at the summit is to help build a bridge to that membership.” But if Kiev isn’t worth risking mass casualties and destruction today, it won’t be worth doing so tomorrow. With some Europeans nevertheless pushing to deploy troops to Ukraine and risk war with Russia, Washington should tell Europe to put up or shut up.
Vladimir Putin’s government is responsible for invading Ukraine. For that Moscow bears responsibility for mass death and destruction. Nevertheless, the U.S. and European states did much to encourage the conflict and share blame for the resulting horror.
That makes it even more important for the allies to step back from the abyss. Washington long ago recognized that Ukraine matters little for America’s defense. Kiev spent most of US history as part of the Russian empire in one form or another. Washington never considered going to war over who ruled Kiev. It should not do so now.
The Biden administration should make very clear that if European meddling in Ukraine leads to war, America’s allies are on their own, NATO notwithstanding. There is no alliance obligation to rescue those joining someone else’s fight. Washington also should forthrightly reject Kiev’s NATO aspirations. No one has a right to join. Alliances are supposed to increase security. Accepting a country at war with Russia would yield conflict not peace.
Instead of prolonging the Russo-Ukraine war, Washington and its allies should work to bring hostilities to a close. Doing so won’t be easy, but the ongoing proxy war risks expansion and escalation. Ukraine is not worth that risk. To properly celebrate NATO’s 75th anniversary, the Biden administration should end today’s proxy war.
The post If Europe Pushes Putin, America Should Tap Out appeared first on The American Conservative.
Scrolly Text Slide 2
Representative Mike Turner (R-OH) said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" that Russian propaganda has "absolutely" infected the Republican base.
The post Mike Turner: Russian Propaganda on Ukraine Is Infecting GOP appeared first on Breitbart.
Peter Pellegrini casting his ballot in Bratislava in the first round of Slovakia’s presidential election in March.
Former President Donald Trump's popularity among Republicans is 43 points greater than Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) popularity, a recent Morning Consult poll found.
The post Poll: Donald Trump More than Twice as Popular as Mitch McConnell appeared first on Breitbart.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 