If someone told you we could defeat Russia’s army without losing a single soldier and without costing American taxpayers one dime, would you be in favor?
Since World War II ended, Russia has been an enemy of the U.S. Fortunately, we haven’t been in a shooting war against them, but we have come close. Remember the Cuban missile crisis?
With Vladimir Putin in charge, Russia is a genuine danger to America, but we can minimize the threat of actual combat, and our soldiers won’t have to lift a finger.
Ukraine is doing the job for us and will continue to do the job unless we genuinely are stupid — which we very well may be.
Ukraine seeks more help as GOP skepticism weighs on future aid
Joseph Morton, The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON — At a Rockwall, Texas, town hall in August, U.S. Rep. Pat Fallon served up plenty of conservative red meat to the right-leaning crowd.
The Sherman Republican roasted Democrats over federal spending, inflation and border policies — as many in the audience chuckled and murmured along in agreement.
But he also faced tough questions on one topic — his May vote supporting $40 billion to help Ukraine fend off Russia’s invasion.
Ten of his Republican House colleagues from Texas voted against that aid package, reflecting skepticism among the party’s base for spending so much money to help another country.
“Spending so much money,” which is 100% free. American taxpayers will not fund any of this spending, not one cent.
The federal government simply will create the dollars out of thin air, as it always does.
Former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”
Former Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”
Quote from Ben Bernanke when he was on 60 Minutes:
Scott Pelley: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?
Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.
Statement from the St. Louis Fed:
“As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”
But Fallon also said he expected that the money approved to that point would be enough to keep Ukraine in the fight for more than a year — and that was before Congress signed off on another $12 billion.
“So I’m rooting for Ukraine,” Fallon said. “I hope they win. I will not be voting for any more money over the next 14 months, because they have what they need for now.”
Of course, Fallon has no idea what he’s talking about.
He doesn’t know what Ukraine needs, and since the money costs us nothing, what is the purpose of being tightfisted?
Before leaving for its recess, Congress passed a stopgap spending measure — opposed by all Texas GOP House members — that included a little more than $12 billion to help Ukraine.
Why did the GOP oppose it? Simple The Democrats proposed it. Period.
The Biden administration recently announced details of the latest package of military aid: a slew of additional munitions, armored vehicles and four High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS.
The HIMARS, which have proved key to the fight, come from Grand Prairie-based Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, which builds them in Arkansas.
It’s good for Lockheed Martin. It’s good for Arkansas. It’s good for the American economy. But the GOP opposes it.
Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov hailed the arrival of four HIMARS last week, thanking the Biden administration and the American people.
“HIMARS time: good time for Ukrainians and bad time for the occupiers,” he wrote.
But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called last week for even more support, stressing the importance of having an air shield to defend against an onslaught of Russian missile strikes.
Advocates for supporting Ukraine say the current situation underscores how the United States must keep the stream of weapons and financial support flowing. But a potential new GOP majority next year could make it tougher to get such measures passed.
Polling shows the percentage of Americans who feel there is too much support flowing to Ukraine has increased, particularly among Republicans.
Why is there “too much support”? Because the public has been fed The Big Lie that federal taxes fund federal spending.
Read the Big Truth, and remember it. FEDERAL TAXES DON’T FUND FEDERAL SPENDING.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, has voted against Ukraine aid.
He said he is all for finding ways to help Ukraine against the atrocities being committed by Russia, but questioned the amount of money involved in light of other pressing domestic priorities.
We are Monetarily Sovereign. Our federal government has the infinite ability to create unlimited dollars.
We can fund Ukraine while funding every other domestic program and still not levy one additional penny in taxes.
Roy said the administration hasn’t provided a detailed explanation of why sending money to Ukraine is in the U.S. national interest, how it will be offset in the budget or evidence it will prove effective in the long run.
Imagine a. U.S. Congressman who doesn’t understand why weakening the Putin government’s military is in the national interest at $0 cost. How did Chip Roy ever get elected to Congress, knowing so little?
He said some of his constituents have flown to Ukraine to volunteer in hospitals, assist refugees and adopt children affected by the fighting.
But they don’t favor a “blank check” for Ukraine, he said, and he’s concerned that’s what the U.S. is providing.
Some of his constituents have risked their lives to help Ukraine, but the GOP refuses to help while risking absolutely nothing — even while supporting the American economy. It boggles the mind.
“We’re literally just propping up the government,” Roy said. “The Communist Party in China is getting money that we’re giving allegedly to Ukraine.
Oligarchs in Ukraine are getting enriched off of our taxpayer dollars, because we’re just dumping money, like truckloads of money. … It’s just mind-boggling that we operate this way.”
Now he’s just making up bullsh*t. He can’t name one “oligarch” who is enriching the Communist Party in China. He must be getting his info from QAnon.
Cynthia Cook, director of the defense-industrial initiatives group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that Ukraine’s success has been aided by the weapons systems provided by the United States, but that the final outcome hasn’t been determined.
“The battle is not won,” Cook said. “The amount of territory that they would have to retake to expel Russia from their soil is still pretty substantial, especially if, as it seems, that they would like to recapture Crimea.
It’s not over until it’s over.”
The longer it goes. Ukraine destroys more Russian tanks, planes, and missiles and kills more Russian soldiers. Hundreds of thousands of Russian men have fled to Norway.
Ukraine is weakening Russian morale. It costs us nothing. We could not possibly have invented a better scenario for America.
But the GOP wants to stop. They want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Those opposed to more aid need to understand the United States is getting something for its money, she said, namely a more peaceful future if Ukraine’s success helps prevent Russian tanks from eventually rolling into Poland.
We went into Viet Nam. We went into Afghanistan. We went into Korea. We lost many thousands of American men and women.
Finally, we have a chance to win a war without losing a single American, and we a reluctant.
“The message is one of ‘we are spending money on a foreign country,’ but at the same time this is a critical fight for democracy,” she said. “It’s pretty important for Europe … if Russia is pushed back from Ukraine and that sort of diminishes the chances of future, more worrisome fights.”
Get it, GOP Yours is the party that never has a productive idea. Now, when a great one falls in your lap, you resist it. Incredible.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, clashed with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., on Twitter earlier this year over his support for Ukraine aid.
In an interview, Crenshaw said that the initial price tag brought a lot of “sticker shock” but that the United States has gotten quite a bit in return.
There isn’t even “sticker shock” because the sticker reads $00.00. Perhaps, that’s the shock.
And let’s face it, if a nincompoop like Marjorie Taylor Greene opposes it, it must be great. Ask her husband about that.
“Some Republicans would disagree, but their reasoning is, frankly, lacking in substance,” Crenshaw said.
He said that he would like more details and justification on just where the money is being spent, but that the result of that investment has been “enormous” strategic gains.
Right, for an investment of ZERO, we are getting great returns.
“And the fact that that’s lost on people blows my mind,” Crenshaw said.
I share your feelings, Dan, but people still are being fed the Big Lie. That blows my mind even more.
Austin Rep. Michael McCaul is the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which puts him in line to chair the panel if his party retakes the majority in the midterms. He has supported Ukraine aid and said the United States could be doing more.
“Once we finally gave them what they needed, like the HIMARS, they started winning and they’re beating them,” McCaul said. “And I don’t understand [opposition to Ukraine aid]. I grew up during the Cold War and I thought killing Russians was a good thing.”
But he also said that he’s discussed the issue with members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and that they are primarily concerned about the cost.
They are concerned about the cost because they do not understand federal finance. How did these people get into Congress with so little knowledge?
He said it will be his role and those of like-minded members to explain to skeptics and incoming rookie members the importance of keeping the support flowing.
“It’s just an education thing,” McCaul said. “They may not understand what’s going on.”
Well, hurry up and educate them. After that, they also may understand why Medicare for All, Social Security for All, Free College for All, more financial support for the poor, and even life insurance for all are both beneficial and easily affordable. It, too, would cost taxpayers $00.00.
Fallon said he understands the sentiment from some Republicans who feel more priority should be paid to the southern border — he certainly agrees much more needs to be done there.
There need not be a financial “priority.” The federal government can afford both.
But he emphasized the United States does not want to see Putin emboldened.
“We don’t want Russia to win,” Fallon said.
Talking about both sides of his mouth, Fallon doesn’t want Russia to win, but he will not vote to help Ukraine win. Our leaders truly are pitiful.
With Putin’s help, Ukraine has given us a gift. Pray we are not foolish enough to throw it away.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.
18 thoughts on “We could defeat Russia’s army without a single American casualty, but . . .”
Rodger – I have to disagree with your statement that Russia or Putin is a direct threat to the US, especially their army. We are bordered on the east and west by two vast oceans and we have very friendly countries to our north and south.
It would take too much time to detail all of the problems with the propaganda with which we are constantly inundated. You will not get the truth from out mainstream media such as the NYT, WaPo, the WSJ, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and the rest of their ilk.
I highly recommend that you broaden your reading and watching about the War in Ukraine. I recommend Gilbert Doctorow, Alexander Mercouris, Patrick Lawrence, Scott Ritter, Alexander Martyanova (sp?), and Moon of Alabama as a start, plus many of the links in their posts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, you lump NYT, WaPo, the WSJ, CNN, and MSNBC, in with Fox News, and you conclude they all are the same. They aren’t.
Fox is a channel specifically designed to lie for Trump and the GOP. Any moral or truthful speakers they may once have had, long since have departed.
As for the others you mention, I’m not sure how you know that they are the “TRUTH” and that the mainstream media lies. I thank God for the investigative media that uncovers the evils of Trump, his family, his pals, and his administration, the closest thing to Hitler we ever have had.
But not for the mainstream media’s digging and revealing, Trump would have won the last election. Then God help us all.
Don’t fall for the Trumpian BS that all media are bad, and everyone lies — except for Trump. It is exactly what he wants you to believe. It is exactly what his followers have been hypnotized to believe.
As for being protected by oceans and borders, please remember that we already have faced Russia and its cohorts in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and in Africa. It’s Russia’s military strength — certainly not its economic strength — that gives them legitimacy around the world. Lets us remember the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)
By weakening Russia’s military, Ukraine weakens its legitimacy as a foe.
It also will reduce their belligerency and perhaps help someday to bring them to the peace table.
First, what I wrote has noting to do with Trump.
Fox, as far as I know, still supports the Washington narrative on Ukraine except for Tucker Carlson, occasionally.
I also did not claim that my recommended reading was the “TRUTH”. In an extremely dynamic situation like the Ukraine war, truth is very fluid as the facts on the ground change very fast. I recommended those folks as a way for you to see a different perspective so you might consider modifying your position on Ukraine. It’s simply about broadening your sources to avoid confirmation bias.
I have to go now, but I may add to this later today.
John, my concern is that you seem to believe America has no enemies.
We have an ocean to the left, an ocean to the right, a benign neighbor to the north, and a weak, benign neighbor to the south, so all is well with the world. Thus, because Russia is neither north, south, east, nor west, it is not an enemy. We could disband our ground forces and rely on the air force and missiles to protect ourselves.
I’m sure you don’t really believe that, but your not recognizing Russia as an enemy displays a troubling, right-wing nationalism, the Kissinger belief that “We have no friends; we only have interests.”
Whether friends or interests, Russia has a historical propensity for attacking neighbors. It’s part of their DNA, and the weaker their army, the less likely they are to attack one of our friends (or interests), and the less likely we’ll need to defend them.
In your last response to my comment, you mentioned Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. That was the Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation, two very different entities. Stalin and his successors in the Soviet Union certainly did have visions of empire. I haven’t seen persuasive direct evidence from the Russian leadership, including Putin, that those visions are still driving their actions.
I do not necessarily believe we have no enemies, although Kissinger may have been correct given the way we treat our “friends” and “enemies” these days. However, I am not defending Kissinger. Sometimes the worst people say the right things.
It is becoming more obvious that you are still very caught up in, and biased by, the Red Scare of the 40’s and 50’s, your formative years. You would probably benefit from re-evaluating those biases in light of more recent developments.
To the extent that Russia is our enemy it is purely in the economic and diplomatic realms. If you have direct evidence from the statements made by Putin and the Russian leadership that they want to conquer the US militarily, please send it to me, you have my email address, or put links into a response to my comment.
As to the competence of our military, well, we haven’t won a war since WWII, and it was actually the Soviet Army that destroyed the German military and brought an end to the war in the European theatre.
In the past 30-40 years our military has relied mostly on air power in the wars we have started. And, we have started most of the wars in which we have participated. Ground troops have mostly been brought in after we have subjected the “enemy” to the “shock and awe” of our air power so they can clean up the holdouts (cf. Iraq).
I am in no way a Putin apologist, but I am a realist and I’m willing to take his words at face value until I see evidence to the contrary.
I’m not at all sure that Ukraine is one of our “friends” that we need to defend. (We certainly aren’t sending ground troops over there to fight, other than CIA and Special Ops.) The events over the past 8 years and more so over the past 30 years that led up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine need to be understood. If you poke the bear until he is cornered, do not be surprised if he strikes back.
Please don’t reject my recommendations for reading just because those folks may not agree with your current perspective. That’s just confirmation bias and I believe you are better and smarter than that.
Take a look a this from Aaron Mate, published today, for some history of the Ukraine war.
Ah, poor innocent little Putin, forced into a fight he never wanted by mean old, plotting Biden.
By the way, here is what Wikipedia says about the author of your recommended article: “He currently works as a reporter for The Grayzone, a fringe blog known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, pro-Putin propaganda, and denial of the Uyghur genocide.”
And this is what you send me, John? What next, QAnon?
Do you really believe that Wikipedia is authoritative and accurate? You do know, I assume, that anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry, your friends, enemies, the FBI or CIA, anyone. It’s so flawed that college professors ban their students from using Wikipedia as a source. You also know that anyone who challenges the accepted narrative gets vilified and marginalized, right? For example, the difficulty that you and MMT have in getting your accurate description of our monetary system accepted by other economists.
Did you read the Mate article or look at the Grayzone web site and read some of their articles? Apparently not. Those folks have been instrumental in exposing all kinds of corruption and bad actors. I won’t bore you with details since you have shown that you have no interest in challenging your beliefs. You probably wouldn’t believe their documented and verified evidence anyway.
Rejecting writers or web sites without actually looking at them and evaluating their credibility for yourself is what ideologues do.
At this point, I think it best that we confine our discussions to economics going forward.
The first Republican or Democrat who takes the side of unlimited spending power will end up persona non grata like Liz Cheney. One of these two party’s leadership will have to go into a secret meeting and everyone come out ready to declare the validity of our being monetarily soveriegn. One lone wolf won’t succeed and will be shunned. But you cannot shun the effort of a Whole Group of political leaders who suddenly decide we are truly financially unbreakable, that a whole new way of achieving success is attainable without debt. This is the principle of strength in numbers. It will take courage to stand up for the truth, the whole truth and, like Liz Cheney, be willing to risk it all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or, Donald Trump could declare his belief in MS, and several million of his zombies suddenly would “understand it.” Hey, I’ll take help from the devil if the message could be delivered.
“Or, Donald Trump could declare his belief in MS, and several million of his zombies suddenly would “understand it…..”
In theory this would work but it would require him to study MS thoroughly. Remember he doesn’t like reading nor telling the truth.
If he only knew how much his contrarian attitude fits in so well with MS and would make him once again popular. Then again, he needs to read a book.
“Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy criticized the continuing celebration of the professional holiday of the old and the modern Russian security services on the anniversary of the creation of the Cheka, with the assent of the Presidents of Russia. (Vladimir Putin, former KGB officer, chose not to change the date to another): “The successors of the KGB still haven’t renounced anything; they even celebrate their professional holiday the same day, as during repression, on the 20th of December. It is as if the present intelligence and counterespionage services of Germany celebrated Gestapo Day. I can imagine how indignant our press would be!”
History of creation from the present entities right back to December 1917 right on their website: https://www-fsb-ru.translate.goog/fsb/history.htm?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru
That Zelnicker fellow commenting above must have great affection for Chekists and Chekism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekism#Attitudes_toward_Chekism_in_contemporary_Russia
I have absolutely no idea who you are talking about and couldn’t care less.
John, the question is not, “What percentage of Wikipedia’s many thousands of articles are wrong, but rather whether this statement is wrong:
(Aaron Mate) “works as a reporter for The Grayzone, a fringe blog known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, pro-Putin propaganda, and denial of the Uyghur genocide.”
One could also say,
“(Rodger Malcolm Mitchell) writes #Monetary Sovereignty, a fringe blog known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, pro-Biden propaganda, and claims of a Uyghur genocide.”
The above isn’t technically wrong, but it’s got a pejorative tone and doesn’t convey any useful information about those positions and whether or not they are true or false.
Sympathetic to authoritarian regimes? Yikes? Do you actually read this fringe blog??
If being anti-Trump is “pro-Biden,” I’ll admit to that.
And I don’t recall discussing the Uyghur genocide.
OK, one out of three isn’t bad — for baseball hitters. Not so good for commentary. And yes, it’s technically wrong.
“Do you actually read this fringe blog??”
Yes, I do.
I read and very much appreciate your informative blog. I wasn’t trying to describe what you write; I was trying to illustrate something about relying on subjective characterization.
I don’t actually believe you’re sympathetic to pro-Biden propaganda or authoritarian regimes, and I don’t really think you make categorical claims about Uighurs. I’m confident about those things because I’m read what you write and judge what you write based upon what you write and not on what someone else describes about what you write.
The illustrative description I invented isn’t technically wrong because the terms “pro-[somebody] propaganda”, “known for”, and “fringe” are subjective. They don’t actually support or refute a position or tell us if it is true or false.
I read the Grayzone, and I read your blog Dismissing either based on a fact-free subjective description is a mistake in my opinion. That’s all I’m trying to convey.
Got it, Rick. I agree.
I too prefer data to subjective terms like “unsustainable” (deficits) and “prudent” (budgets) and “overheated” (economy).