MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Foreign Policy’

Next Entries »

TGIF: Foreign Policy Matters

Posted by M. C. on June 23, 2023

Other burdens on people’s freedom include economic regulation, trade barriers through sanctions and tariffs, the militarization of local police departments, and the corruption of the news media. It’s said that the first casualty of war is truth. (Noninterventionist Sen. Hiram Johnson said that in 1917.) War and government lying go hand in hand.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-foreign-policy-matters/

by Sheldon Richman 

leviathan

In an extra special way, foreign policy matters crucially to champions of individual liberty. Not that it doesn’t matter to other people too — just not in all the same ways. Anyone who understands the importance of keeping government power strictly limited in domestic matters (if such power must exist at all) will also grasp the paramount importance of constraining government power abroad. They’re cut from the same cloth.

This is obvious to libertarians, but not necessarily to others. When Randolph Bourne wrote that “war is the health of the state,” he expected his readers to understand that this is a bad thing because the state is dangerous. But do most people know that? For neoconservatives and humanitarian interventionists, war being the health of the state is a feature, not a bug.

I think it was Richard Cobden, the 19th-century British free trader, peace activist, anti-imperialist, and member of Parliament, who demanded, “No foreign politics.” He meant that the government should be too busy dismantling power at home to engage in deadly balance-of-power intrigue abroad. In America a century later, Felix Morley, the anti-interventionist and pro-market newspaper editor, said in opposing the advocates of war and central bureaucracy that politics will stop at the water’s edge only when policy stops at the water’s edge, which he favored.

War naturally repulses individuals because — obviously — it kills and disables people, most atrociously, noncombatants. It’s so obviously repulsive that many soldiers have to be turned into killers during training. Another count against war is that it encourages a self-destructive, indiscriminate, and collective hatred of foreigners and even local individuals who are invidiously identified with the designated “enemy.” (Russian athletes and even long-dead Russian composers are targets of hostility these days.)

But those who understand that full individual liberty is a necessity — and not a mere luxury — include another count in the indictment against war. It inevitably fosters the general growth of government power, which then infects all aspects of life and society. That doesn’t happen all at once, but it sets in motion a deadly process that menaces everything in its path unless it is stopped. Few things approach war fever in this regard. (A pandemic and a major economic crisis can have similar effects.)

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Examing the Foreign Policy Establishment’s ‘British Connection’

Posted by M. C. on June 14, 2023

Of course, apart from world encompassing imperialist frameworks and Russophobia, the British also introduced their American counterparts to the central banking and government propaganda apparatuses necessary to expanding Washington’s cheaply won contiguous land empire of the nineteenth century abroad in the twentieth. Having adopted these methods, Washington could, when Britain’s strength was finally exhausted, “Pick up the torch of empire from our [Britain’s] still cooling fingers.”8

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/examing-the-foreign-policy-establishments-british-connection/

by Joseph Solis-Mullen

cecil rhodes

In 1877, before he had made his fortune via the founding of De Beers Consolidated Mines and the British South Africa Company, the imperialist par excellence Cecil Rhodes had dictated a part of his will thusly: “[To make provision] for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world.” This was to include, “The ultimate recovery of the United States of America.”1

This grandiose vision was pragmatically tempered in the final version of his will (1902), which instead set up an eponymous scholarship, the stated intention of which was to, “promote unity among English speaking nations.” Thus was the Rhodes Scholarship, which sees a handful of America’s future leaders shipped off to Oxford each year, conceived of and brought into being.2

Just looking over a list of some of those selected, the influence of British thinking on American grand strategy in the century that followed becomes all too explicable: From Stanley Hornbeck, special advisor to FDR’s Secretary of State Cordell Hull, the longest serving Secretary of State in U.S. history, to J. William Fullbright, senator and longest tenured Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1945-1974), to JFK and LBJ’s Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and Walt Rostow, LBJ’s National Security Advisor: these men were among the most influential hands steering U.S. foreign policy from the 1930s onward.

Later architects of U.S. policy to pass through Oxford via the program include Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations and Director of Policy Planning for George W. Bush (2001-2003), Joseph Nye, chair of the National Intelligence Council and Deputy Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton3 (1993-1995), Strobe Talbot, Deputy Secretary of State and lead architect of Clinton’s Russia and NATO expansion policies (1994-2001), Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor (2013-2017), Ash Carter, Secretary of Defense under Obama (2015-2017), and arguably the worst U.S. Ambassador to Russia ever, Michael McFaul (2012-2014).

As an aside, given the catastrophic performance of these later figures it is worth noting that apart from absorbing British principles of imperial strategy—the work of the Oxonian Halford Mackinder (1861-1947) clearly having influenced that of the foundational American realist Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943), who in turn greatly influenced John Foster Dulles (Dwight Eisenhower’s Secretary of State from 1953-1959)—American policy architects seem to have also imbibed the abiding British suspicion of the Russians, as well as their tactics for dealing with the “barbarians,” as the aforementioned ex-Ambassador McFaul described them on Twitter a week ago.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Biden Administration’s Latest Tone-Deaf Foreign Policy Positions

Posted by M. C. on June 6, 2023

Worse, Washington’s boorish behavior is alienating countries whose support the United States may want or need with respect to other issues. The recent episodes provide further evidence of the administration’s intellectual bankruptcy regarding foreign affairs.

antiwar.com

by Ted Galen Carpenter

U.S. leaders rarely have been noted for being able to gauge changing sentiment in the international arena and adjusting their foreign policy accordingly. The Biden administration, however, may be setting new records for the tone-deaf quality of its policies. Three incidents in the past few weeks illustrate the problem.

There has been obvious movement in recent months on the part of leading Arab powers to temper their feud with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Only a few years ago, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other countries were in a partnership with Turkey and the United States to unseat Assad – largely because of his close alliance with Iran. Now, those same powers have changed course dramatically, seeking a rapprochement with both Damascus and Tehran. Important signals of the new political environment were Saudi Arabia’s restoration of diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria’s re-entry to the Arab League.

Instead of going along with the new diplomatic and geopolitical realities in the region, the Biden administration chose this moment to escalate its increasingly futile attempts to isolate Assad. On May 30, Washington imposed new economic sanctions on Syria. As Dave DeCamp noted, the businesses were targeted using the Caesar Act, a law the US has used to impose sanctions on Syria that are specifically designed to prevent the country’s reconstruction.” One could scarcely imagine a more ill-timed move, given the powerful, contrary diplomatic trends in the region.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Don’t Look to Militarists for an Antiwar Foreign Policy

Posted by M. C. on April 22, 2023

Rallying around a proven militarist as the vehicle for opposing war and empire is ridiculous, and continuing to do this in 2023 is discrediting.

Trump not only continued and escalated the wars he inherited, but when he was presented with the opportunity to end U.S. involvement in one of the most shameful wars in Yemen he refused.

https://daniellarison.substack.com/p/dont-look-to-militarists-for-an-antiwar

DANIEL LARISON

Matt Duss takes apart the silly attempts to paint Trump’s foreign policy as antiwar and anti-imperialist:

These pieces all rest heavily on the claim that Trump launched no new wars. That’s true as far as it goes. But it was certainly not for lack of trying. Trump might not have started any wars, but he massively inflamed existing ones—and came close to catastrophic new ones.

Some antiwar conservatives were inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2015 and 2016 because he made some of the right noises about the Iraq war, but Trump’s foreign policy record once in office proved that they had made a serious mistake. As I have said before, Trump never opposed wars at the beginning when it matters, and it is only later after the war goes badly that he reinvents himself as a critic when there is no longer any political danger in opposing it. As he has shown once again with his calls for intervention in Mexico, he is not opposed to starting wars in the least.

It was a deeply regrettable error to think that Trump might have an antiwar agenda as president. After four years of seeing Trump wield the power of the presidency, there can be no excuse for persisting in that error. Rallying around a proven militarist as the vehicle for opposing war and empire is ridiculous, and continuing to do this in 2023 is discrediting.

If we are serious when we say that economic wars are wars, it’s also not true that Trump didn’t start any wars. His “maximum pressure” campaigns against Iran and Venezuela were attacks on the people of both countries. He also presided over the intensification of broad sanctions on North Korea and Syria. Broad sanctions are profound interventions in the affairs of other countries, and Trump’s Iran and Venezuela policies stand out for how crudely imperialistic they were. While the stated objectives were different, the basic contempt for the rights of other nations and the willingness to use collective punishment to compel their submission were the same. Trump’s foreign policy was the opposite of restraint.

Barry Posen had Trump’s number fairly early on. He recognized that Trump wasn’t a non-interventionist or “isolationist,” and he knew he definitely wasn’t a restrainer. Posen described the strategy behind Trump’s foreign policy as one of illiberal hegemony:

Breaking with his predecessors, Trump has taken much of the “liberal” out of “liberal hegemony.” He still seeks to retain the United States’ superior economic and military capability and role as security arbiter for most regions of the world, but he has chosen to forgo the export of democracy and abstain from many multilateral trade agreements. In other words, Trump has ushered in an entirely new U.S. grand strategy: illiberal hegemony.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Banality of Biden’s ‘Exceptional’ Elite Advisers – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on March 28, 2023

US foreign policy is earmarked by chronic stupid stuff because we no longer produce Renaissance men or women who see things in their proper perspective and avoid magnifying fleas into elephants. Renaissance thinkers understand, like Lord Byron, that history, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page, that there is nothing new under the sun, and, that an Aristotelian mean is the presumptive optimal approach to any problem. Narrowly trained specialists cannot see the forest for the trees and routinely stumble.

https://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2023/03/26/the-banality-of-bidens-exceptional-elite-advisers/

by Ray McGovern

Danger: President Joe Biden’s sophomores running U.S. foreign policy today live in a dream world on the verge of becoming a nightmare. The nightmare – military confrontation with both Russia and China – now looms.

It is scary enough that Biden seems to be out of it. Scarier still is the reality that his advisers appear to be oblivious to the tectonic-change implications of Russia-China entente. Blinded by the illusion of US”exceptionalism,” they may have to learn the hard way. The nightmare into which they are sleep-walking may be the last nightmare for pretty much all on this planet, except maybe the cockroaches.

Okay: Antony Blinken is no longer a sophomore. But he was a sophomore 20 years ago when he helped his then-boss, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden lie about weapons of mass destruction to win congressional approval for war on Iraq. Neither of them were held accountable for that – one of the worst foreign policy disasters in U.S. history. Indeed, the only thing they seem to have learned from it is that they will never be held accountable, not even if they wander, oops, into cataclysmic disaster.

Blinken is his now-boss’s, loose-cannon Secretary of State. Will Blinken, now an upperclassman, and the insider-sophomores like national security adviser Jacob Sullivan get us, willy-nilly, into war with Russia? How about war with both Russia and China? Do not put it past them.

Oddly, they have the benighted notion they can “manage” China; keep it from military-alliance-type support for Russia; or – if necessary – handle a two-front war with the two other major nuclear powers. Odder still, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, who should know better, seem cowed by Blinken and Sullivan – despite the fact that they have less military experience in the military than an ROTC cadet.

No Renaissance Men (or Women)

Bruce Fein, a Renaissance-man-type lawyer, pins the blame squarely on these benighted policy makers for trying to encircle and handcuff both China and Russia. Fein is not impressed by the fact that these specialists come from “the best schools.” Here’s Fein in a recent substack post:

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Litany of Pride – The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on March 28, 2023

Twenty years ago, we invaded Iraq at the counsel of detached wonks who have always been too impressed with themselves.

Respected, though controverted, surveys figure the number of dead in the hundreds of thousands and perhaps even more than a million. Many more Iraqis were injured, and an estimated third of the population, 9.2 million people, were displaced at some point, with more than two million driven overseas. The numbers are shocking, a special outrage for an aggressive war based on falsehoods that failed to fulfill its objective and left behind a sometime failing state

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-litany-of-pride/

Doug Bandow

Two decades ago, the worst president in modern U.S. history plunged the country into a foolish and needless war. Thousands of Americans died. Hundreds of thousands of foreigners lost their lives. Trillions of dollars were squandered. Yet few Washington policymakers have learned anything from the experience.

Indeed, some members of the blob, as the foreign policy community is indecorously known, are most worried about the American people opposing new misadventures. Journalist Natalia Antonova sees “defeatism in the words and actions” of those who oppose Washington’s once unstoppable War Party. AEI’s Hal Brands fears “the ‘no more Iraqs’ mindset.”

Washington, D.C., has long been full of people full of themselves—convinced that they saw further into the future than others, had the mandate of heaven to remake the world, and needn’t concern themselves about the human cost of their grand ambitions. The collapse of the Soviet Union unleashed an especially toxic mix of hubris and sanctimony.

In 2001 the neoconservative war lobby found its president, the ideological simpleton George W. Bush, and its moment, the horrific 9/11 terrorist attack—tragic retaliation for years of foreign meddling. Encouraged by modern political Know Nothings, Americans imagined that they were targeted for their virginal innocence. However, people in the Middle East and beyond saw something very different: multiple military interventions, sustained support for dictatorships and occupations, and endless hypocrisies.

Bush plunged the U.S. into a misguided military crusade and nation-building campaign, justified by lies and designed by fantasists. The president’s minions advanced their convenient falsehoods even though abundant contradictory evidence circulated within the administration. Factotums and pundits alike believed what they wanted to believe, unconcerned with the consequences. Even today, few war advocates acknowledge error let alone express regret for the catastrophic consequences of their policy.

Republicans were the woke warriors of their time, seeking to silence anyone who questioned their Great Leader in Washington. When challenged over sources and evidence, members of the war party responded with vitriol and bile. To oppose aggressive war meant one was an idiot, traitor, or both. To oppose an illegal invasion meant one was pro-Saddam Hussein. To oppose a preventive war against a phantom power meant one was unconcerned that the smoking gun might yield a mushroom cloud.

Amid the tsunami of neocon misinformation, conservative betrayal, and Republican opportunism, the mid-2000s were a bleak time to be a dissenter. A once friendly newspaper essentially stopped running my articles, even on other subjects; online conservative publications lost interest in my submissions, despite claiming to be open to all; one site retrospectively purged my anti-war columns from its archives. Within my own organization a senior staffer in another department advocated war on a nominally libertarian website. The American Conservative was one of the few publications to stand on principle, despite the resulting torrent of insults and obloquy.

Of course, Iraq was not the Bush administration’s only misadventure. Dubya also imagined that Afghanistan could be turned into a liberal democracy, a shining city on a Central Asian hill. Instead of making a deal with the demoralized, defeated Taliban, the faux warrior president left American troops in Afghanistan, fighting to turn that ancient land half a world away into a U.S. client and military base. This effort, too, came to a calamitous end. There, as in Iraq, other people paid the highest price for Washington’s arrogance and incompetence.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Republicans, Foreign Policy, and Federalism – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 4, 2023

Congressional Republicans are horrible on such key issues as foreign policy and federalism. They share equal blame with the Democrats for the destruction of the Republic.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/03/laurence-m-vance/republicans-foreign-policy-and-federalism/

By Laurence M. Vance

Although the Republicans regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the November midterm election, they were the opposition party for the first two years of Joe Biden’s presidency. But just what did the Republicans oppose?

I have every so often for the past fifteen years referred to a tool I use to judge Republicans in Congress. I am referring to “The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution.”

The Freedom Index “rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.” It is published by The New American magazine, where I am a contributing columnist.

The new edition of the Freedom Index is the last for the 117th Congress, and looks at ten key measures. Scores are derived by dividing a congressman’s constitutional votes by the total number of votes cast and multiplying by 100. So, the higher the score the better.

This edition tracks congressional votes in the Senate on semiconductor incentives, foreign aid, declaration of war, expanding NATO, targeting parents as domestic terrorists, the Inflation Reduction Act, hydrofluorocarbons reduction, terminating Covid-19 national emergency, marriage, and the omnibus 2023 spending bill.

It tracks votes in the House on the U.S. military in Syria, abortion access, expanding NATO, semiconductor incentives, assault weapons ban, the Inflation Reduction Act, electoral count procedures, federal police grants, marriage, and the omnibus 2023 spending bill.

The average Republican Senate score was a pathetic 60 percent. The average Republican House score was 71 percent. A brief look at some of the things Republicans voted on shows us that the Republicans did not oppose much of anything when it comes to an interventionist U.S. foreign policy and an assault on federalism.

During the consideration of a veterans healthcare bill, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) offered an amendment to prohibit the distribution of foreign-aid funds, other than to Israel, for 10 years. Only 7 Republicans voted in favor of it.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What might a DeSantis foreign policy look like? – Responsible Statecraft

Posted by M. C. on November 22, 2022

DeSantis’ record doesn’t offer much evidence that he has questioned any of the Republican Party’s hawkish positions,

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/21/what-might-a-desantis-foreign-policy-look-like/

Written by
Daniel Larison

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has become one of the main challengers to Donald Trump for leadership of the Republican Party in the wake of his landslide reelection victory last week over Democratic candidate Charlie Crist. 

While DeSantis is best known nationally for controversies over Covid and culture war battles, he has a foreign policy record from his years in Congress and even during his tenure as governor that also merits closer scrutiny. If he seeks the Republican nomination for president, as many now expect he will, voters should be aware of the foreign policy worldview that he brings with him. 

Before he left the House for Tallahassee, DeSantis established himself as a vocal critic of the Obama administration’s foreign policy with an emphasis on attacking U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran and Cuba. His three terms in the House overlapped with Obama’s major initiatives of negotiating the nuclear deal with Iran and restoring normal relations with Cuba, and like the rest of his party DeSantis was hostile to both policies. 

The hardline positions that DeSantis has taken on issues relating to Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela are not surprising given Florida politics, and they have aligned him closely with Florida’s hawkish Sen. Marco Rubio and fellow Iraq war veteran Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

During the original debate over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), DeSantis was an early and vocal opponent of an agreement with Iran. He co-authored a July 2015 op-ed in Time with Tom Cotton outlining the usual hawkish objections to the deal. Like most critics of the agreement, they misrepresented what it would do and exaggerated the benefits Iran would receive from sanctions relief. The op-ed was long on outrage and short on offering any serious alternative to diplomacy to resolve the nuclear issue. 

DeSantis and Cotton also indulged in rather hysterical threat inflation about Iran, saying, “They will stop at nothing to end our way of life.” 

In addition to the op-ed, DeSantis released statements and spoke on the House floor many times denouncing any agreement with Iran that would allow them to retain any part of their nuclear program. He continued to rail against it after the agreement was implemented. Under Trump, DeSantis was enthusiastic in his support for undermining and leaving the JCPOA and imposing additional sanctions on Iran. On the decision to renege on the nuclear deal, he said that Trump “did the right thing.” 

Going beyond the Trump administration’s stated goals for reimposing sanctions, DeSantis has imagined that the Iranian government could be brought down through more outside pressure. In a Fox News segment, he sketched out his idea of how regime change might happen: “So, I think the more we can connect people and expand social networks there, I do think that this regime’s days are numbered, and the more success we have in choking off the money and opening up the networks means their demise will be met quicker.” 

Judging from his record, it is reasonable to assume that if DeSantis were elected president he would have no interest in negotiating with Iran about anything and would instead be looking for ways to destabilize and topple the government there.

DeSantis had already left the House by the time that Congress made its war powers challenge to U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led coalition war on Yemen, but while he was there he was a reliable vote against any restrictions on U.S. weapons going to Saudi Arabia. For example, he voted against a 2016 amendment that would have prevented the transfer of cluster munitions to the Saudis. The vote on that amendment was not strictly along party lines. There were 40 Republicans that voted for limiting the kinds of weapons being transferred to Saudi Arabia after the war had been going on for a year, but DeSantis stuck with most of his party on this question.

On other issues, DeSantis was a cheerleader for Trump’s early hawkish decisions.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

What If US Policymakers Are Even More Stupid Than We Think They Are? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 21, 2022

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/11/karen-kwiatkowski/what-if-us-policymakers-are-even-more-stupid-than-we-think-they-are/

By Karen Kwiatkowski

It goes without saying that the US foreign policy is not wise, not measured, nor even well informed. The US leadership doesn’t even try to hide the hypocrisy and the stupidity.

The Defense Department has been clear about its US foreign policy agenda vis a vis Russia, as discussed here in a 2019 Rand Corp paper, and repeated in the media by people on all sides who take this agenda as fact.  Overextending and unbalancing Russia is the rationale for the US proxy war in Ukraine, for the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, for the unprecedented economic sanctions and financial seizures of Russian assets by western governments, for the CIA instigated color revolutions in Eurasia, and the US naval and extensive US military occupation throughout the world.  All acts – hypocritical, terroristic, offensive and dishonorable – are justified under this program.  For the elites running the US capital, it’s what war looks like.  They have never fought in one, but from what they have read in books and screenplays, this makes sense to them.

“Our leaders” appear to believe in this agenda.  It also fits with WEF centralization, maintains the western elite status quo, supports the MICIMATT, and seeks to expand global commodity exploitation by western capitals.

As this information is public, you don’t need to be a PhD or an intel weenie to figure it out.  But what if the US is the one being played, and not the other way around?

I was asked the other day by RT if the US can afford to keep sustaining Ukraine’s defense and pay for Zelensky’s fantasies on an annual basis – given that the USG is on track to spend twice as much ($91 Billion) as we spent in Afghanistan per year, and funding the Ukrainian military at a level that is 33% higher than the entire Russian annual military budget?  I answered, “Of course we can’t!”

That was my reactive response – I have never believed the US could afford to fund its domestic welfare, entitlement, and military expenses, much less fighting proxy wars.

What if my gut feeling, from a lifetime of trying to understand how things really work, is already common knowledge in the halls of power outside the US?  For example, what if the Russians and the Chinese had already assessed and long understood the fundamental weakness of the United States in the areas of fiscal, monetary, economic, military and cultural health?

If this is the case, I might understand the Russia’s “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine better than many of our otherwise objective military and strategy analysts. Pro-Western media claim victories where none exist – and pro-Russian commentators disdain Russian military conservatism.  Both sides are constantly disappointed by facts on the ground.  Russia has consistently broadcasted Moscow’s simple objectives for the SMO – and they are accomplished now.  Nazis in the east are gone, Russians in the east who were intended to be protected under Minsk II are protected now – as Russian citizens, and the ability of Ukraine to organically threaten Russia has been greatly reduced.  NATO membership is off the table, and the world has gotten a glimpse of what Zelensky-style democracy and statesmanship looks like.  And it looks like “Russia attacks Poland” and “Ukrainian corruption eliminated.”  It speaks to the need for a strait-jacket, size tight, not more weapons and cash.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Next Entries »