Borders #274
By Hank Silverberg
Ukraine has withdrawn from the key eastern city of Avdiivka under heavy pressure from Russian troops in a major setback for the beleaguered Ukrainians. Part of the reason is the lack of ammunition for their artillery.
The Ukrainians will now form a better defensive line as they continue to hold off against superior Russian forces.
There is a lot of presidential politics in play over this debate (Trump is against the bill), but our congressional leaders may be missing the right motivation to move ahead.
The wars in both Ukraine and Israel are not just about Ukraine and Israel. The stakes are pretty high for the whole world.
There is no question that Vladimir Putin wants to restore the old Russian Empire, which would include absorbing Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. He thinks those places belong to Russia. He has already gained control of Belarus for practical purposes, if not officially.
Adding Ukraine puts him right up against NATO, an organization specifically set up in 1949 to stop expansion of the old Soviet Union. Its very existence did just that, allowing democracies to crop up when the price of the Cold War finally caught up with Russian communism as it withered away.
For much of the early part of this century, we have ignored Europe. It was peaceful, except for a few small ethnic wars in Bosnia and Chechnya. NATO was a political success story.
But Vladimir Putin was lurking, just waiting for his chance to return the glory of Russian Imperialism. He was not basing it on his old creed, communism, but on his new creed--power and greed.
NATO fell asleep at first, then turned its focus towards international terrorism after 9-11. With no one paying attention, Putin resumed Russia's centuries-old historical quest for a Black Sea port and moved into Crimea.
Much of Europe and the U.N. blinked. The U.S., other than a protest, mostly ignored it. And Ukraine all of a sudden was struggling to protect its hard- earned independence with an old style city-to-city border war.
Donald Trump's ascendency to the White House pretty much told Putin we were preoccupied with domestic division, and Putin could do whatever he wanted. He did just that in 2022 when he launched an unprovoked attack on what was left of Ukraine.
That's the brief history. Since then, the United States and NATO countries have provided billions of dollars in aide and equipment and the Ukrainians, who against great odds, have managed to keep Russia at bay.
But without more aide, the Ukrainians could be doomed. A Russian victory could put all of Europe in jeopardy. Countries like Poland, Germany, Romania and Finland have already started to beef up their defenses. The tiny Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, judging from history, could once again be absorbed into the Russian Empire with only token opposition.
President Biden, with some historical political savvy, knows what all this could mean, and he has been pushing hard for the aide package. His political opponent, Donald Trump, thinks it's none of our business, since the Atlantic Ocean is in between us and them. Trump ignores the scant 55 miles between the Alaskan coast and mother Russia, just across the Bering Sea.
This is not 1918, or even 1939. We live in a global society where information travels across the world almost instantaneously, and an Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) can travel from Russia to the continental USA in just 30 minutes.
The best way for us to stop Russian expansion and a DIRECT threat to the United States and our way of life is to provide support for the Ukrainian Army to fend of Putin now. If the Kyiv government falls, it won't be long before the U.S. troops are facing Russian troops on the Polish border rekindling a cold war that threatened to get very hot for almost 50 years.
If Congress doesn't act soon, the threat to our borders will not be a few million immigrants entering Texas or Arizona. It will once again be the threat of nuclear annihilation from an expansionist regime in Moscow.
A Scam With A Twist
Another new scam is floating around the country. It comes in the form of a very official looking letter supposedly sent from the Social Security Administration. It
tells you your Social Security number has been suspended because of criminal activities and that an investigation is underway. The letter says a legal complaint has been filed after numerous attempts to serve you with legal papers failed, and it provides a phone number to call for details that supposedly is the office of the Social Security Inspector General.
In New Mexico alone, according to this letter, the illegal activities involve money laundering, narcotics trafficking and IRS fraud to the tune of $14 million.
The first clue the whole thing is fake? Your social security number will NEVER be suspended.
Second clue that it's fake? The letter has the seal and signature of Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas at the bottom of it. Any real investigation involving Social Security numbers would be done by a federal agency like the Social Security Administration, not a state Attorney General from a different state from where the so-called crime was committed.
The phone number on the letter does not appear to belong to either the Social Security Administration Inspector General or the Texas Attorney General. I tried calling the number which seemed to have a perpetual busy signals the entire weekend, and there is no such number listed at either agency's website.
This is one of those frauds where the scammer is after your SSN, bank account number or other personal information.
The letter is not only fraud, but it's also a political slap at the Texas A-G. Fellow Texas Republicans tried unsuccessfully to impeach Paxton last year for several reasons. He has also been active in the lawsuits against the Biden Administration on the immigration issue at the border. So he has name recognition for many people.
The bottom line: If you get such a letter, either in email or snail-mail, you can report it at the link below, just hit delete or throw it away.
Trump Inc.
The same company that brought you Trump Air, Trump Steak, Trump Vodka and Trump University--all failures, now brings you Trump Sneakers! The fact that those other three companies all failed has not deterred the Republican presidential candidate from unveiling a new effort to make some money. This past weekend, he went to "Sneaker Con" to push his new shoe brand.
Trump got many boos and some cheers at the Philadelphia Convention Center for the "Never Surrender High Tops" with shiny gold high rims and an American flag on the back. The sneakers, dubbed "Victory47," will sell for a staggering $399 a pair on a new website (that's more than double the price of high-end "Air Jordans"). The Trump website also sells "Victory47" cologne for $99 a bottle. The 47 represents the 47th president if he is elected again.
The website says it has no connection to the Trump campaign, though the Associated Press reports campaign officials did promote the Philadelphia appearance on their on-line posts.
There is some symbiosis here. The launch of the new sneaker brand comes the day after a judge in New York ordered Trump and his company to pay $355 million in penalties in a fraud case where he lied to banks for years about his wealth. Trump also has to pay an additional $83.3 million in the E. Jean Carrol defamation suit. That's a lot of sneakers and perfume.
What did Trump say at the event? The AP says it was hard to make out with part of the crowd chanting USA, USA, and the other part booing loudly. (There's no photo or link to the website here because I don't want to promote Trump products.)
https://apnews.com/article/trump-sneakers-sneaker-con-philadelphia-4de093eda6f8d1c68baf8fe8095f777b
The Most Dangerous Quote of The Week!
I switched the title of this section this week because sometimes the dumbest quote can also be the most dangerous. And the title this week belongs to presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump.
It relates to what I wrote about at the beginning of this blog. This week he referred back to something he said to a NATO leader while he was president, when he was chiding NATO leaders because their countries had not paid their share of the costs for the organization. Trump said back then that the U.S. might withdraw from NATO if the countries didn't pay up. That, of course, would further encourage Russian expansionism, to which Trump said:
"I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want!"
That sent a shock wave through Europe, which has depended on a NATO deterrent to keep the peace for 80 years. Trump's comments will certainly bring smiles at the Kremlin, but it also sends the wrong message to others looking to expand their influence and power, like China and Iran.
(Your comments and suggestions are welcome)
My recent book "The Campaign" can be purchased at the links below. Or you can buy a copy by emailing me at:
HankSilverberg@gmail.com for instructions on how to get a copy at a reduced price and with my signature)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B084Q7K6M5/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-campaign-hank-silverberg/1126429796
My NEWEST book is now available. It is designed for use in Public Speaking and entry level communications classes.
I wrote a whole comment but it disappeared. I am dedicated but not to that extent.
ReplyDeleteHank, long time listener but firs time caller. (That's the line you hear a lot on radio call-in shows and I wonder why anyone cares that someone is a "first time caller"? Who gives a flip?)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I read your dire thoughts on Ukraine and they, along with developments over there, lead me to think the US is going to have to get in with both feet and station some troops and other assets in Ukraine to keep Putin in check. Clearly, he doesn't want a direct war with the US but without the threat, he's free to be as brutal as he wants. Biden screwed up big time early on when he indicated we would do nothing directly because "that's WW III". If you fear something that much, the potential for it to be realized is enhanced, greatly.
The US has intervened in wars around the world in places where we knew they couldn't strike back and, as it turned out in most cases, where our "national interests" were not nearly as strong as publicly stated. Places, in fact, where we had no business and little to fear. Now, as you indicate, the potentials are much greater and all we can do is, maybe, send arms? Not likely to be enough.
By the way, it is my impression that "web log" and blog were created to diminish the importance and value of online postings. Blog is pejorative, in other words. Needs a new name.
Doug Terry