The Tragedy of Realism in Ukraine

5,285 words

Alexander Vindman
The Folly of Realism: How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine
PublicAffairs, 2025

The greatest tragedy of the twenty-first century so far is the Ukraine War which started in 2022. One of the people interested in this tragedy is Alexander Vindman, a foreign mercenary who served the US Army but is now retired.I’ve read he became an arms dealer after leaving the military. Vindman is a Jew born in Ukraine. Vindman, was one of several Jews involved in the unjust first impeachment of Donald Trump.

The roots of the conflict in Ukraine go back to the time when Vikings founded the Kievan Rus, a Middle Age polity. Lothrop Stoddard writes:

The legend of the founding of Kiev is quaintly significant. The story goes that the local tribes were so afflicted by domestic feuds and raids by their neighbors that they invited a famous Viking chief to be their ruler. Their invitation is said to have run as follows: “Our land is great and has everything in abundance, but it lacks order and justice. Come and take possession and rule over us.” Whether or not the legend states the exact facts of the case, certain it is that about a thousand years ago a Norse chief named Rurik did become ruler of Kiev and built up a state which soon became powerful and which laid the foundations of Russian nationality and civilization. It is also noteworthy that the early political centers in northern Russia, like Novgorod and Pskov, lay likewise on the Scandinavian trade-route and seem to have been mainly due to Scandinavian influence.

The Kievan Rus was not a nation-state in the strictest sense. It was a Scandinavian-ruled area with many Slavic people connected by a riverine trade network. In 987, the ruler of Kievan Rus, Prince Vladimir I, converted to Christianity and this set the stage for the development of the system that became Russian Civilization.

To put it simply, in the thousand years since the conversion of the Kievan Rus to Christianity, the Dutchy of Moscow went on to become the most powerful entity within the polity. From Moscow, the Russian people and culture expanded, especially to the east. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian part of the Kievan Rus developed differently, becoming more Westernized when part of the area in which the Ukranians lived was ruled by Poland. During the violent time between the collapse of Tsarist rule at the end of World War I and the rise of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was briefly independent, but this freedom was crushed by Soviet communists, who went on to engineer a deliberate famine to keep their hold on the area.

After World War II the Soviet Union, expanded into the lands of the Ukranians who were living in the areas once ruled by the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. These newly integrated Ukranians were highly Westernized. The metapolitical activities of the Western Ukranians, as well as the recent memory of Soviet-caused starvation, helped fuel a resurgence in Ukrainian nationalism as the Soviet Union started to collapse in the late 1980s. In 1991, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic became independent Ukraine with its borders as they were defined in Soviet times.

Currently, the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is that of an related people who fall across a civilizational and historical divide; with Ukraine being more Western and Scandinavian, and Russia being more Eastern Orthodox and Eurasian. Additionally, the Russians have a strange, obsessive attachment to Ukraine in which they feel they must directly rule the area. The Ukrainians see Russian rule as misrule, and evil, not to be repeated. The situation is like a toxic marriage with one person eager to keep the reluctant other in wedlock.

Realism & the Ungroup

During the dangerous early part of the Cold War, world peace depended upon the diplomatic relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. The most important component of the Soviet Union was the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. As a result, Cold War Era Americans saw Russia as the primary nation in Eastern Europe and northern Eurasia, a viewpoint which continued after the Cold War ended.

Then there is America’s realist foreign policy school of thought which is a rejection of Woodrow Wilson’s idealist vision of “making the world safe for democracy.” Prominent realists were/are the late Henry Kissinger (Jewish) and John Mearsheimer. Realism assumes that powerful actors abroad must be reasoned with, and reasoning with a rival is better than waging an apocalyptic war. Vindman writes:

The US assessment of the situation in Ukraine [in the late 1980s] conflated what would soon become the new Russian Federation with that singular great rival, the Soviet Union, involving a historical conception of the power of the Russian Empire. This acceptance of Russia’s own account of its history and nature made Russia, instantly and immediately, the exceptional priority in regional relations. Washington, after forty years of Cold War antagonism was all too willing to believe that Russia was at once more fearsome, due to upheaval and instability, and more likely to form a productive partnership with the West than it ever really was. That mentality has persisted throughout many twists and turns of events and ins and outs of politics in the US, in Ukraine, and in Russia. It began in the George H.W. Bush administration and continued, across otherwise deep partisan divides, throughout the administrations of Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Biden, with Trump a possible exception: his personal approach was chaotic and, in opposition to the entire national security establishment, he was obsessed with manifesting a friendly relationship with Vladimir Putin, already proven a despot. The prevailing approach across administrations has been crisis management, a transactional mode of at once containing and courting Russia, which allowed little room for the long-term values-based approach that would have deterred Russian aggression and revealed opportunities to form productive, enduring strategic alliances with others – most crucially, Ukraine. (pp. 31 – 32)

The Russia-first idea described above deeply affected the Ungroup. The Ungroup was a team that the Bush 41 administration created after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Its purpose was to prepare for the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Ungroup was small, consisting of a few senior civil servants in the security establishment and some undersecretaries. Its existence was unofficial and hidden from the military establishment. Two of those in the group were the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion hireling Condoleezza Rice and the neoconservative Israel First Zionist, Paul Wolfowitz.

The Ungroup focused on cooperation with Russia. Therefore, when the Soviet Union collapsed, American policy towards the splintering polity traveled upon two separate but parallel paths. First, the Bush 41 administration saw the disposition of the former Soviet Socialist Republics as a matter internal to Russa. Therefore, he went to Kiev to recommend Ukraine and Russia stay united. Ultimately, this led to a long-lasting American coldness towards Ukraine. Bush 41 and Clinton had a secondary effort, which was get nuclear weapons out of the newly independent states (such as Tajikistan) and into Russia. The fear of an atomic weapon stored in a former Soviet Republic getting into the hands of a terrorist group was widely felt and formed the plot of the comedy film Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997). Another fear was that the various ex-Soviet Republics could use atomic weapons against Russia or another former Soviet Republic. Vindman points out what is obvious now, the weapons should have gone to the United States and been dismantled at the facility in Johnson Atoll rather than back to Russia.

The most significant former Soviet Republic was Ukraine. The exact status of the Ukrainian control over the Soviet nuclear weapons in Ukraine is debated. There is a question of whether or not the Ukrainian government ever had operational control of the devices. Vinman believes that independent Ukraine did have operational control, but did not have the technical ability to continue to maintain the weapons, which would have made the bombs useless after several years. After considerable diplomatic wrangling between Bill Clinton, Russia’s Boris Yeltsin, and Ukraine’s president Leonid Kuchma, the Ukrainians gave up their atomic bombs for vague promises that Russia would not invade in 1996.

Russian Revanchism

Around this time, Yeltsin raised the idea that Russia was being threatened by Western encroachment. Additionally, Russian elections were sending extreme Russian ethnonationalists into Parliament and they were utterly hostile to Ukraine. The mid-1990s is when anti-Ukrainian laws and decrees started to get published.

In the late 1990s, the Eastern European nations closest to Russia started to fear Russian aggression and revanchism and they lobbied the Clinton administration to join NATO. This effort was resisted by many solid American diplomats and politicians including Senators Bill Bradley and Sam Nunn, and former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The most important voice against NATO expansion was George Kennan, who wrote the Long Telegram outlining the strategy to contain the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Kennan also saw the communist ideology as something like Gnosticism and felt that the Soviets needed to resisted primarily along theological lines rather than just through the military. Kennan’s resistance to NATO’s eastern expansion was extremely influential.

Boris Yeltsin started to fumble and stumble in the late 1990s. His health declined and his alcoholism became impossible to hide. He was followed by Vladimir Putin. (This is putting the succession simply; Russia’s constitutional processes are weak and vague. Putin effectively became dictator-for-life in 2000. To stay within the Russian constitution, Putin has played a shell game of switching offices while holding absolute power.)

Poland joined NATO in 1999. The Poles were able to outflank skeptics like George Kennan by threatening to build an atomic bomb should Poland’s NATO application be rejected. NATO expanded for a second time in 2004. This second wave brought in the three Baltic nations, all of which had formerly been Soviet Socialist Republics. Between 2004 and 2005, Ukraine went through the Orange Revolution, which culminated in the election of a Western-leaning president.

The supporters of the Orange Revolution were West-leaning Ukrainian ethnonationalists, many of whom had US citizenship or ties to Western Europe. The Russians had tried to influence Ukraine during Orange Revolution, but their efforts didn’t achieve success. Many Russians believed that the United States was behind the events – which could be possible. It is likely that Russian interference in Ukraine at this time far exceeded what the Americans were doing, and the Russian establishment is projecting their own actions on the United States.

Regardless of who did what at the time in is unquestionable that the expansion of NATO and the Orange Revolution created a Russian reaction. Putin, building on the already hostile attitudes towards Ukraine and Europe among Russia’s ethnonationalists, delivered a speech in April 2005 in which he declared that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy. For the nations nearest to Russia, the speech was alarming proof that Russia intended to expand and hold the areas which they’d held as part of either the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire.

Meanwhile, Ukraine wasn’t doing itself any favors. Ukrainians sold weapons to various nations, including Iraq, greatly aggravating the US State Department. Ukraine was also corrupt and many people in its government were former communists and Soviet sympathizers. Ukraine was unable to fully unshackle its markets from its command economy ideology. Ukraine was also deeply divided between its Russian-speaking Eastern Orthodox east and its Western Christian (to put it in simplistic theological terms) and Ukrainian-speaking west.

In 2008, the Russians invaded Georgia. The war started during the opening ceremonies of the Olympics and the attack took the American government by complete surprise. The war was not long, but it did lead to the Russian occupation of Abkhazia and Ossetia. These are parts of the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic which are the homelands of non-Georgians. Modern Georgia became independent with the borders it had as part of the Soviet Union.

Other than the foolish Senator from Arizona, the late John McCain, most of the American political elite didn’t view the 2008 Russian-Georgian War as part of a trend of Russian revanchism. McCain issued a statement that pointed out the trend, but it was poorly received. By 2008, McCain’s poor judgement was widely known. McCain endorsed war in every place and at every opportunity and at the time the Iraq War was an ongoing disaster. He also campaigned on building a border wall and ending Obamacare but when re-elected, did not do anything about the problems. He even voted down a law that would have ended Obamacare during Trump’s first term.

In 2010, McCain faced a primary challenge, and he raised $20 million to fight his rival within hours. Should documents come to light that McCain was paid by foreign actors I wouldn’t be surprised. Aside from himself, the only entity McCain wholeheartedly helped during his long political career was the so-called State of Israel. McCain also failed to recognize that the Georgians were not just rulers. They really did oppress the Abkhaz, and they were equally hostile to the Ossetians. During Soviet times the worst of the communists, the dictator Joseph Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s head of the Soviet Secret Police, were Georgians.

In 2014, West-leaning Ukrainians organized the Euromaidan protests in reaction to a president who became pro-Russian while in office. The protest was a mass movement which showed that Ukraine wanted to be part of the European Union rather than a satellite of Russia. In response, the Russians invaded Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine. Both regions were predominately ethnically Russian and Crimea had been part of Russia until 1954, when it was moved into the Ukrainian SSR for ease of administration.

The Russian strategy in 2014 was called hybrid warfare. The invading soldiers were said to be Russian-speaking Ukrainian rebels. They wore no insignia, and the Russian government claimed non-involvement. This meant that the Russian government could operate under the legal fiction that they were not waging an aggressive war. The Russians also launched a deliberate campaign of propaganda and disinformation which made it difficult to follow what, exactly was going on. The Obama administration did little in response. Russian forces also deployed to Syria where they eliminated a troublesome group of fanatical Islamic radicals.

Nancy Pelosi’s Anti-Trump Circus

In 2016 Donald Trump was elected on a platform that promised to reverse the ongoing problems coming from the illicit second constitution, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, immigration, and de-industrialization. Any of the establishment politicians could have addressed these issues prior to Trump’s campaign, and some occasionally said something, but Trump’s campaign vibe indicated that he would get genuine results.

Establishment Washington’s reaction to Trump’s election was swift and hostile. Mid-level bureaucrats who “happened to be Jewish” sprang into action. One in the Justice Department arranged a Special Prosecutor to investigate Trump. The vindictive and spiteful Senator John McCain also arranged a perjury trap for Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. McCain had asked a vague question of Sessions about “the Russians” in the confirmation hearing and then claimed that Sessions was in league with “the Russians” when it came to light that Sessions had met with some actual Russians in the ordinary course of his duties. McCain knew about the anodyne meeting before asking the question during the confirmation hearings. The perjury trap forced Sessions to resign. These actions cut off Trump from allies and damaged his administration from the outset.

Throughout Trump’s first presidency, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media kept up a drumbeat of accusations that “the Russians” had “interfered” in the election but they didn’t say exactly what that “interference” consisted of – it was basically some advertising for or against the two candidates as well as social media campaigns designed to polarize the electorate.

When the Democrats won the House of Representatives in 2018, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi shifted focus of her party into an effort to “get” Trump. She did everything to stoke the George Floyd riots and publicly didn’t cooperate with the Trump administration. In private, she supported Trump’s adjustment to NAFTA.

Jews and the Unjust First Impeachment

Vindman doesn’t say much about the unjust first impeachment in this book. Vindman was a “fact witness” during the impeachment hearings and he described the “impeachable” offense which was Trump seeking to get the Ukrainian government to launch an investigation into Joe Biden’s corrupt dealings in the country – Biden’s drug addicted son had a well-paid no-show consulting job in a Ukrainian firm, among other perks. Trump threatened to withhold aid until the investigation started. While Trump’s mild shakedown sounds bad, it isn’t much different from what Lyndon Baines Johnson did during his sordid presidency.

The facts laid out in the book – that a series of American presidents had ignored the Russian threat and treated Ukraine with contempt – undermines Vindman’s moral claim against Trump during the first impeachment. Trump wasn’t doing anything any differently from what his predecessors had done. Trump probably saved Ukraine by shipping Javelin anti-tank missiles to Kiev.

The unjust first impeachment of Donald Trump consisted of a large coincidence of ethnonationalist Jews as well as several immigrants. In earlier times, the ethnonationalist Jews would have proceeded with more caution. They probably did not in this case because of the metapolitics arising out of the World War II narrative. Starting in the 1970s, Hollywood put out escapist and nostalgic programs about the conflict. Many of these shows contained the idea that the war was won by a coalition of old-stock Americans and immigrant Jews who seamlessly worked together to win the war and “save lives.” The two miniseries, The Winds of War (1983) and War and Remembrance (1988-1989), best convey this idea. A corollary to this way of thinking is that liberal, internationalist WASPs and their Jewish allies defeated home-grown “fascism” before defeating Hitler and “saving lives.”

As always, the truth is a bit different. The ultimate joint Anglo-American/Jewish project during the Second World War was building the atomic bomb. Ethic considerations and tensions quickly became part of the warp and weft of that effort. There was a joke that one needed to be a Presbyterian to be a janitor at Los Alamos, where the project was headquartered. At the high levels, the program was led by an old-stock American Yankee, Leslie Groves and many of the scientists were Jews. The bomb building effort was a labor of love for the Jews on the project, at least until the Nazis were defeated and then they lost interest. The bomb was built, however, and Jewish spies ensured that Stalin knew it worked the day of the test. This allowed him to mass forces on the Manchurian border so he could quickly invade Japanese Imperial Territory the day the second atomic bomb was dropped. Later, Jewish spies ensured the Soviets got the technical specifications for the bomb, giving the Soviets the weapon, thereby allowing the Korean War to happen.

When the unjust first impeachment of Trump took place, awareness of the Jewish Question had spread across American society like never before. Midway through the hearings, an Evangelical Protestant minister named Rick Wiles called the impeachment a “Jew coup,” which was a paradigm shifting political event. It was unthinkable for an Evangelical Protestant to go against the idea of America having a “Judeo-Christian” heritage prior to the impeachment.

Additionally, a foreign immigrant like Vindman probably doesn’t see the post-Cold War deployments in the same light as an old-stock American on the same tours of duty. Those campaigns were of a dubious value for an American. Someone with Vindman’s foreign background, however, might see himself as the leader in a tough army who was able to use his American friends to attack his people’s tribal enemies. Admittedly, this comment is a cheap shot, but still…

An old-stock American is more neutral abroad. Personally, when I was in the service, I was exasperated by some of the allied people I worked with who were often filled with a baffling resentful rage, they were at your throat or at your feet even during ordinary interactions. As one explained to me in a moment of frankness, his friends and family liked Baywatch but didn’t want Americans to get too close. They feared being overwhelmed. Other allies, such as the Kurds, are simply murderous criminals. It is very likely that none of the Jews or immigrants either seeking to impeach Trump or testify against him recognized the Anglo-American frustration just described.

As a result of these factors, the unjust first impeachment of Donald Trump led to a good portion of America hostile to Ukraine. Alexander Vindman’s impeachment stunt gave Putin an enormous advantage in the lead up to his invasion.

The American Far Right’s Share of the Blame

It would be great to blame the Ukraine War on the Jews, but they weren’t the only players bringing about the tragedy. The American far right has plenty of guilt. The first problem is that right-wing Americans failed to recognize the importance of the connections between America and Ukraine that were well established by the late nineteenth century. Ukrainian immigrants like the family of Jack Palance, turned out to be easy to assimilate. Many of the migrants were not Ukrainians, but Russian–Germans, who are a people similar to the Pennsylvania Dutch whom William Penn recruited to farm in his Quaker colony.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, ties between America and Ukraine sprang up like mushrooms after a spring rain. I personally know NCOs who trained Ukrainian soldiers at Fort Knox in the early 1990s, I have family members who left their farms in the western prairie to help turn around the dysfunctional former collective farms. I know many people, both Catholic and Protestant, who went to Ukraine as part of a religious mission and were well received.

At every level of Western Civilization – from a Nordicist point of view, to sympathy for Western Christian solidarity, to the liberal ideas regarding an Open Society, Ukraine exceeds Russia. Ukraine’s high level of corruption will not survive increased contact with the West, but under Russian rule, the laws that stretch back to the Mongolian conquest will bind the whole society with the chains of cultural despotism.

Unfortunately, far right Americans, including myself, bought into the Russian narrative and that influenced American society greatly. The far right in America is highly influential. To explain it in a metaphor, the ideas of the far right are like a black hole out in space. Astronomers cannot see the black hole, but they know it is there due to the motion of objects around it that can be seen. The Reagan administration, for example, was really influenced by rar right thinkers including John Beaty, who wrote The Iron Curtain Over America, as well as Christian Identity Ministers like Wesley Swift, Sheldon Emry, and Carl Stadsklev. George H. W. Bush was defeated in 1992 because of the actions of the far right.

The reason for this hidden influence is that few people admit they consume far right content and then act upon its ideas. What brings people to the far right is what D.W. Pasulka calls a “book encounter.” This is when someone experiences something mysterious – such as a light in the sky – and then that person finds a book which explains what happened. The first UFO “abductees” saw something mysterious and then one of the “abductees” encountered a book about flying saucers. Dr. Pasulka’s field of study is religion, and she has written about the UFO phenomenon and how it parallels religious visions.

In the case of the far right, we don’t lie about black pathology. John Derbyshire bests describes this pathology in his article The Talk: Nonblack Version, which got him fired from National Review. In it he writes:

As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random – for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers – the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means – the averages – of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences. Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions. These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet. A small cohort of blacks – in my experience, around five percent – is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks – around half – will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.

An unpleasant encounter with a black causes whites to do research and inevitably they have a “book encounter” with some form of pro-white content like that describe by Derbyshire. Because white advocates aren’t lying about what so many see with their own eyes and feel in their bones, the far right has an enormous, but hidden influence.

In the case of the lead up to the Ukraine War, Russian talking points seeped into the conversation on the same far right websites which truthfully talked about sub-Saharan pathologies. Richard Spencer’s Russian (ex)-wife translated the works of Alexander Dugin and posted it to Spencer’s website and pro-Russian ideas spread from there. Pro-Ukrainian voices became confined shrill, scolding liberal women, like Anne Applebaum, who one might suspect is cut from the same bolt of cloth as “Hanoi Jane” Fonda. One can easily imagine Applebaum writing a column entitled “Baby Killers” after seeing soldiers from the West Virginia National Guard. Admittedly, this comment is a cheap shot, but still…

Anne Applebaum and any other pro-Ukrainian can fire cheap shots the American far right’s way in the comments section.

War is Hell

It’s time for the Ukraine War to end. It is clear that Russia’s chances of conquering Ukraine are unlikely. Ukraine also has no chance of crowning their president Tsar in Moscow. So now what?

The American far right can hold itself blameless in some ways, despite the aforementioned mistakes. We named the Jew, even pointing out that Jewish women working for some Western government involved in Ukraine were no longer young and pretty. We also, foolishly, cared about Russia’s “security concerns” and did what we could do in our limited, but quietly influential way to ensure America didn’t do any reckless provocations. However, Putin sent his legions anyway. Perhaps Putin is the man who deserves the lion’s share of the blame for this mess.

War is hell. It is time for resolve. First, old-stock Americans need to take back control of the State Department – certainly an American with Spanish blood is better than a Jew at the top job there. Having policy crafted by old-stock Americans is critical. The effect of control by half-loyal minorities was described by Wilmot Robertson when he wrote:

A denationalized foreign policy has many heads and hearts, but no soul. It supports imperialism in one part of the world and opposes it in another. It upholds human rights in some areas; in others it honors and rewards the violators of those rights. It gives money and arms to anti-American governments, but boycotts pro-American governments . . . Not only America but most of the world has lived to regret the day the Majority [i.e. white Americans with northern European ethnicity, often with ancestors among the original settlers] lost control of American foreign policy. There is nothing more dangerous in international relations than misdirected energy, nothing more tragic than a great nation that expends its greatness blindly.

Then Europe needs to show some resolve. First, start the deportations. Pakistani groomers getting perp walked into an El Salvador-style prison in Tunisia or Libya will send a signal to the Russians indeed. Then, Europe must rearm. Every city in the nations which were either part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union needs to be fortified, with a large stock of canned meat and granaries full of wheat. The food can be paid for by NATO and purchased from American farms. Deploy long-range rockets to Poland and Lithuania. Deploy French fighter bombers with atomic bombs on the wings to Romania to serve as a deterrent. Then the track gauge in Ukraine needs to be switched to that used by Western Europe’s rail system. This allows Ukraine’s food to easily be railroaded out and weapons easily railroaded in. Every underemployed Englishman from the deindustrialized regions in the North can be used for this and their (high) wages can be paid by the European Union. Tell the Russians an attack on English railway workers will trigger NATO’s Article 5.

Americans can give a security guarantee to Ukraine while not saying so explicitly through Trump’s so-called “minerals deal.” American civil servants from the Bureau of Land Management can be sent over to “look for minerals.” They should have a sort of uniform – Union Army blue style of army fatigues with US Department of the Interior stenciled on the back in blaze orange ink. Give ‘em a big cowboy hat too. This is the compromise; Ukraine isn’t in NATO but is not left to face Russia alone because of American interest in Ukrainian “minerals.”

The Trump administration has acted in good faith to end this war, ending USAID, reaching out to Russia, and holding a disastrous, shameful, and embarrassing meeting with Ukraine’s president in the glare of the camera-lights of the world’s press.

Should this outreach be rebuffed, Trump should re-hire H.R. McMaster, Fiona Hill, and Alexander Vindman to make a symbolic statement, and then have Ukraine’s top soldiers head to the States, meet with American military officials at Fort Leavenworth, and explain what is working – if it is anti-personnel drones, make them in droves, if more artillery shells are required, get every factory making them, as well as shoot-and-scoot self-propelled howitzers. Then target the soldiers in the Russian Army’s Chechen, Siberian, and Mongolian regiments as well as the sons of every official in Russia – down to the hog reeve of Yegoshikha who is deployed to Ukraine. Use an AI program to scan social media accounts, they’ll get found. Allow Ukrainian HIMARS batteries to sink every Russian ship the ports of Crimea. Let their be a cry of anguish in Russia like there was in Egypt.

Leverage the tariffs with China to end Chinese support for the Russian war effort. American should also consider leaving South Korea, an action which will destabilize and threaten the Russian Far East. The Japanese should do some overflights of Sakhalin Island with armed stealth-capable supersonic jets.

If all of this sounds bad it is only because the situation is bad, war is hell, and this disaster has gone on too long. Russia can keep what it gained on the battlefield since Ukraine’s Russian areas were problems before the war started. When the Russians are ready for peace, immediately end the anti-Russian sanctions and military actions. Release and pardon POWs from all sides. Build monuments in Ukraine for the Russia’s valiant fallen so their families may mourn. End the malice when the shooting stops.

Vindman argues for a foreign policy called neo-idealism. I urge all Americans to avoid this. If the past is any guide, neo-idealism pushed by a Jew will morph into Israel Über Alles. Diplomacy is difficult, the most important thing is to have old-stock Americans or people assimilated into the families of old-stock Americans setting policy.