Sunday morning music

 

This morning's post might as well be titled "And now for something completely different" . . .

It seems that in several parts of the world, vegetable orchestras have become a thing.  My attention was drawn to them when King Charles of formerly Great Britain played a carrot recorder in concert with the London Vegetable Orchestra last week.  You can read more about them at the link.

Here's the LVO with "Resolution Song".

The Vienna Vegetable Orchestra is an older group, and performs all over the world, including an occasional tour in the USA.

Here they perform at a TedX concert in Vienna.

Last but not least, there's a US version too:  the Long Island Vegetable Orchestra.  Here Conan O'Brien interviews its founder, Dr. Dale Stuckenbruck, complete with instrument-crafting and -playing.

Dr. Stuckenbruck emphasizes that after playing the "instruments", you have to eat them.  This is refreshing, and reminds me of a butcher's advertisement in England a few decades ago, after the movie "Watership Down" came out.  Above a display of rabbit carcasses was the inscription:  "You've read the book, you've seen the film, now eat the cast!"

Peter

Tariffs: Wall Street versus Main Street

 

There's a significant amount of noise-versus-signal debate over President Trump's new tariffs.  I thought I'd offer a simple explanation, that glosses over many of the finer details but clarifies the essence of the problem.

Basically, tariffs benefit those who produce locally.  Goods made in America are not subject to tariffs, and the components and elements used in their manufacture are not subject to tariffs if they're also locally produced.  Imported components and elements are subject to tariffs, but since they're typically a fraction of the cost of the finished article, the tariffs don't add too much to the cost of the article.

Tariffs do not benefit - indeed, they indirectly attack - those who want to "export" manufacturing and production to cheaper environments offshore.  The primary reason so many jobs were lost in the USA over the past few decades is not just technological advancement:  it's also that wages and associated costs overseas were a small fraction of US levels.  (That's no longer as true as it was, because overseas wages and costs have increased dramatically:  they're still usually lower than ours, but not by nearly as much as they were.)

Thus, the rise of "globalism" was, in fact, a push to send expensive manufacturing overseas rather than keep it here.  Why?  Because companies could make much more money by producing their products at a low cost, importing them at minimal or no tariffs, and then selling them for as much as they'd charge for US-made products.  Alternatively, they could make their low-cost products and sell them more cheaply than their US-based competitors, thus cornering the market and driving the others out of business.

The focus on manufacturing turned into a focus on financialization.  The manipulation of money became more important to many businesses than the goods they produced, and the place the latter were made became less important than the cost of making them.  Thus, local jobs were greatly reduced because they were too expensive compared to workers overseas - and companies didn't care about the social and cultural costs involved.  They cared more about the "broad picture" of making money overall.  (To illustrate, ask yourselves why the big auto manufacturers all developed in-house financial operations like Chrysler Capital, Ford Credit or GM Financial.  They did so purely and simply because there was more money - and more profit - to be made by financing auto sales than there was in simply selling cars;  and they wanted to keep that profit in-house rather than lose it to banks and other loan providers.  The profit from those financial operations rivals - in some cases, exceeds - the profit from making the vehicles.)

Thus, companies that financialized their operations became hits on Wall Street.  The more money they made, and the lower their costs could be driven, the better their stock price became as investor money (seeking, as always, the best return) poured into them.  The fact that executives at such companies often received a large part of their compensation in the form of stock offers, or bonuses for stock performance, had a lot to do with that.  Executives were now effectively working for remote investors, people with no interest at all in what the company made but every interest in exploiting its profits.  Thus, Wall Street became richer and richer, while Main Street (where the goods were actually made and sold, and where jobs depended on that process) became poorer and poorer.  That's why we have millions upon millions of people unemployed or underemployed in this country - and why those people have become a burden on the federal government through entitlement programs like welfare, Social Security disability, food stamps, etc.

Tariffs threaten to reverse that process.  They make it much more expensive for companies to manufacture their products in other countries and import them.  It becomes cheaper and more advantageous to make them here, and hire locals to do the work.  However, that's also a threat to countries like China and Vietnam, whose entire economic success has been built upon becoming low-cost manufacturers for the rest of the world.  Those companies look upon President Trump's tariffs as a direct and immediate threat to their own economic well-being, and they're right.

This is also a threat to the other developed economies of the world.  Not only are their exports to America now going to cost US consumers more (and therefore sales of imported goods may be expected to decline), but they're now going to experience a flood of imports from countries that previously exported a lot to the USA, but must now find new markets for their products - or watch their own economies decline.  The entire global order of making goods cheaply for export to other nations hangs in the balance.

Yes, the tariffs are going to cause economic problems for a while (although not, I think, as severe as some pundits are claiming).  However, they're also likely to succeed in revitalizing US manufacturing and production.  For example, just yesterday I heard of someone complaining on social media that in Maine, long-mothballed paper plants were being reactivated, because it was going to be too expensive to import lower-cost paper products from Canada thanks to the new tariffs.  Other shuttered paper mills are being converted to manufacture other wood products.  That's exactly what the tariffs are designed to accomplish!  Those reopened plants will offer jobs to local employees, and a boost to local economies where their wages will be spent.  It will also reduce those employees' dependence on public assistance, and reduce that burden on taxpayers.

In a nutshell, that's what tariffs are designed to achieve:  and that's also why Wall Street, and those who've made fortunes from financialization, and the news media that are themselves the product of financialization in that they're owned by the oligarchs who made fortunes from it, are all bitching about them and forecasting doom, gloom and destruction.  It's simply Wall Street versus Main Street.  For decades, Wall Street has lorded it over Main Street, to the former's enrichment and the latter's impoverishment.  Now that tide appears to be turning - and Wall Street hates it.

I'm willing to give President Trump a chance, and his tariffs time to show whether or not they'll accomplish what he intends.  It's going to be a bumpy ride, but the scenery should be fascinating!

Peter

Heads up, shooters: tariffs and our ammo supply

 

I'm sure many of our more enthusiastic firearms owners have already built up quite a large stash of ammunition to support their sport/hobby/whatever.  However, there are many others who don't bother;  they buy what they need, when they need it, and panic whenever something interrupts normal supply lines to produce an ammo shortage.

The just-introduced tariffs may make some brands of ammunition harder to find, and will almost certainly make them more expensive.  Sam Gabbert of SGAmmo writes:

Late in the afternoon yesterday, the US government's new wide sweeping tariffs on imports were announced. In my opinion, they were worse than expected regarding what effect this will have on price and supply for ammo in the USA.  In short, it is going to drive up prices for the consumer in a dramatic way and totally cut off supply in certain brands over time.

. . .

Example 1 - PMC from South Korea was hit with a 25% tariff and is a major supplier of the most popular options for 5.56/223 ammo, as well as 9mm and many other calibers. This tariff increases the cost to 1000 rounds of 5.56 by about $100, and 1000 rounds 9mm about $50. At that point they simply cannot compete in the market against US manufacturing and most likely would slowly exit the market over the next year with the most popular products drying up first. Also, PMC's mother company, Poongsan Corporation, supplies US ammo manufacturers with a huge portion of copper strip used to make ammunition, which will drive up cost of US manufactures. 

Example 2 - Prvi Partizan in Serbia was hit with a 37% tariff, and is a key supplier of metric rifle calibers, economical handgun ammo, and 5.56 FMJ ammo. This 37% tariff, if it holds, will totally force them out of business and you will see this manufacturer totally exit the US market over the next 6 months.

Example 3 - Igman in Bosnia, a key supplier of 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 ammo was hit with a 36% tariff, which increases the cost of 1000 rounds of 7.62x39 by about $180. No one will import it at all if this cost is added.

Example 4 - , Sellier & Bellot in the EU (Czech Republic) was hit with a 20% tariff. This drives the cost of their 9mm up $40 per 1000 and affects other products in a similar way, and at that point they cannot compete in the market on many popular products. 

Example 5 - Magtech in Brazil was hit with the smallest tariff at 10%, but still substantial to drive 9mm prices up $20 or so per 1000 rounds.

In my opinion, unless the tariffs are reversed or reduced to much lower levels, the most likely course for where we are at is that many of the import ammo brands are driven out of business in 6 months to a year or are forced to charge unrealistic prices that very few consumers will pay, shrinking their volume to an unsubstantial point. At the same time, US manufacturing most likely slowly raises prices 3% to 8% once each quarter of remaining 2025 and early 2026, pushing prices up to match import competitors on the most popular calibers like 9mm, 45 auto and 5.56 / 223 and more, where profit margins have been suffering due to price cuts over the past 2 years while also dealing with continuous upward movements in manufacturing costs. What you do is your business, but this will have an undeniable effect of forced price increases at our store and all other ammunition websites and retailers of all types, and it is my opinion that buying today will save you in the long run.

There's more at the link.

I've got mine, thank you very much;  but I've already advised those who expend a few hundred rounds of practice ammo every year (which is a minimum level, let it be said) to increase their stockpile.  Furthermore, this might be a good time to invest in a lower-cost training or practice weapon, shooting cheaper ammunition, to back up your primary defensive weapons.  .22LR or 9mm ball costs a lot less than some larger cartridges, which can save a bundle on training, even taking the cost of a "spare" weapon into account.  The latter can pay for itself very quickly in terms of ammo savings.

Just a thought . . .

Peter

True dat!

 

Found on X.com:

Peter

The real impact of President Trump's tariffs

 

Jeff Childers points out that the tariffs on imports that President Trump imposed yesterday not only level the economic playing field, they overturn a decades-old system of trade that's become wildly warped and twisted in favor of others while being detrimental to the United States.

It would be easy to dismiss yesterday’s announcement as dry, economic arcana — tariffs, trade deficits, bilateral agreements, country-by-country charts, and economic reports. But don’t be fooled by all the paperwork. What Trump did wasn’t just a historic across-the-board trade action.

It was a once-in-a-century power shift.

To understand how truly historic it was, look back to Bretton Woods, 1944 — the postwar deal where America agreed to carry the world’s economic burdens in exchange for geopolitical dominance.

After the devastation of WWII, the United States promised to help rebuild Europe and Japan, by opening our previously protected markets to foreign goods, keeping our tariffs low to nonexistent, providing the world’s reserve currency, and underwriting global security with American military power.

In return, other countries were supposed to gradually liberalize their economies, buy American goods, and play by the rules. But they never did.

Instead, they took our postwar deal —designed to help them— and ran with it. They piled up tariffs, non-tariff barriers, VAT taxes, and trade cheats while the U.S. kept its markets wide open.

For decades, the American working class footed the bill while foreign economies fattened themselves, and American elites made billions facilitating and perpetuating the grift. That was globalism. It’s not an ideology— it is a business model. And Trump just crushed the model.

He didn’t just slap tariffs on a few industries, as has always been done before. Instead, he:

• Imposed the first across-the-board tariff on all imports in modern U.S. history (with certain exceptions).
• Reversed the postwar deal by demanding reciprocity rather than charity.
• Linked trade to national security, manufacturing independence, and economic sovereignty.
• Gave himself a live, adjustable tariff dashboard to pressure every foreign government, one-on-one.

In short, Trump didn’t “adjust policy” — he dismantled Bretton Woods.

For the first time since 1945, the United States is no longer offering up its consumer market as a global welfare program. Trump’s not playing the age-old game of whack-a-mole, with its endless unproductive diplomacy, swanky secret summits in Alpine resorts, and backroom G7 handshakes.

No, he’s negotiating right out in the open. Holding a sledgehammer of tariffs, leverage, and a crystal clear message: Open your markets to us, or pay dearly for access to ours.

That is why foreign governments, corporate media, and the parasite class are howling. The postwar free ride is over. The host finally vomited up the parasite. And the Bretton Woods era is finally finished.

There's more at the link.

Childers also points out that America's tariffs on our trading partners are not yet anywhere near their tariffs on our products.  If their corporations want to avoid the impact of these new tariffs, the solution is simple.

Trump made two main points. First, taking his critics head on, he insisted tariffs will ultimately lower prices for Americans: “We will pry open foreign markets and break down foreign trade barriers, and ultimately more production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers.”

In other words, he’s shaking off the ticks.

Next, Trump means to revitalize our infected body politic. He repeatedly explained how our once world-class manufacturing sector has been hollowed out, and our once vital industrial cities have been reduced to smoking ruins. It’s a valid point his critics mostly ignore, because they cannot argue the inarguable.

Trump intends to reverse America’s long, slow slide into industrial oblivion.

And he offered a simple solution to any foreign companies hurt by the tariffs: a generous invitation. “To any company that objects to our common sense reciprocal tariffs… my answer is very simple: If you want your tariff rate to be zero, then you build your product right here in America,” the President said.

“Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country… this will indeed be the golden age of America,” Trump said.

It’s already working. Late last night, for example, Israeli officials indignantly tweeted that it had immediatly deleted all its tariffs on American goods, and demanded why Trump’s new Israel tariffs weren’t canceled yet ... Expect a lot more of this.

Judging by the anguished screaming coming from many of our trading partners, they really thought they could blackmail President Trump into abandoning (or at least drastically scaling back) his tariff initiative.  Now that he's gone through with it (and isn't finished yet, because he has the power to adjust tariffs up or down in future against any trading partner that tries to play fast and loose with the new system of trade), they have a simple choice.

Effectively, it's an economic application of the time-honored Golden Rule:  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  If they want the USA to charge lower tariffs on their exports, then they must charge lower tariffs on what the USA exports to them.  Quid pro quo.  Treat us the way you want to be treated.  If you insist on imposing an economic burden on us, we'll do the same to you.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how that's unfair . . .

Peter

One can only salute her courage

 

A highly rated fencer "took a knee" in a Maryland tournament rather than face a transgender opponent.

Women’s fencer Stephanie Turner refused a match against a transgender opponent at the Cherry Blossom Open in Maryland this past weekend, opting to take a knee instead.

. . .

“I knew what I had to do because USA Fencing had not been listening to women’s objections regarding [its gender eligibility policy],” Turner said.  “I took a knee immediately at that point. Redmond was under the impression that I was going to start fencing. So when I took the knee, I looked at the ref and said, ‘I’m sorry, I cannot do this. I am a woman, and this is a man, and this is a women’s tournament. And I will not fence this individual.”

“Redmond didn’t hear me, and he comes up to me, and he thinks that I may be hurt, or he doesn’t understand what’s happening. He asks, ‘Are you OK?’ And I said, ‘I’m sorry. I have much love and respect for you, but I will not fence you,” she added.

Even though Redmond warned Turner that she would likely be disqualified for refusing to compete, she accepted her fate anyway. Indeed, minutes after her refusal, the referees gave Turner the black card penalty, and she was expelled from the tournament.

. . .

USA Fencing defended its transgender and non-binary athlete policy as a means for inclusion.

“The policy was designed to expand access to the sport of fencing and create inclusive, safe spaces. The policy is based on the principle that everyone should have the ability to participate in sports and was based upon the research available of the day,” it said in a statement.

“We respect the viewpoints on all sides and encourage our members to continue sharing them with us as the matter evolves. It’s important for the fencing community to engage in this dialogue, but we expect this conversation to be conducted respectfully, whether at our tournaments or in online spaces. The way to progress is by respectful discussion based in evidence,” it added.

Turner acknowledged that she will face backlash for her decision ... “It will probably, at least for a moment, destroy my life. I don’t think that it’s going to be easy for me from now on going to fencing tournaments. I don’t think it’s going to be easy for me at practice,” Turner said. “It’s very hard for me to do this.”

There's more at the link.

Of course, I agree with her position, which is medically and biologically unassailable.  One's sex - and, yes, one's gender too, despite protests from the "woke" - is determined by one's chromosomes.  A man can undergo all the sex-change surgery he wants, and a woman likewise, but their chromosomes will remain as they were at birth.  Changing the outward appearance cannot and does not change the underlying person.  For anyone or any body (sports or otherwise) to argue otherwise is to defy science, to spit in the face of reality.

We're going to have to continue to confront this evil twisting of reality and denial of truth for years to come, because those behind it are diabolically persistent in trying to overturn science in favor of their own brand of pseudo-science.  Congratulations to Ms. Turner for upholding the truth and refusing to be cowed by falsehood.  May her example motivate many others to do likewise.

As Theodore Dalrymple has pointed out:

When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.

One may safely assume that Ms. Turner will not be "easy to control".  Excellent!

Peter

Lawdog voices an increasing concern

 

I'm sure most of my readers have read The Lawdog Files - either the old blog, or his books.  He's a personal friend of long standing.  Lawdog is now writing on Substack, and a lot more frequently, too.  Do yourself a favor and bookmark his new online home, and visit it frequently.

Here are excerpts from one of his recent essays, which I endorse completely.

There are a whole bunch of 50-70 year-olds in the United States who fought the Cold War in dark alleys, midnight ports, and moonlit rooftops with knives, brass knuckles, and silenced pistols.

There are a whole bunch of 30-50 year-olds in the United States who fought vicious CQC battles in places like Mogadishu, Tora Bora, Fallujah, Najaf, and Mazar E Sharif.

There are 20-somethings from places like Compton, El Paso, Chicago, Detroit, Tiajuana, “the barrio”, “the ghetto”, and “the heights” who have stainless-steel teeth and thousand yard stares.

There are uncounted numbers of immigrants who have come here from war-torn hell-holes — and brought the skills and attitudes that enabled them to survive along.

On top of all that — America is the only country that I know of where a man of good record can walk into a school, hand over cold hard cash, and get a weekend of training that Special Forces in the Third World are envious of.

This is what I’m worried about.

I’m worried that when Biff the Hygienically-Challenged and his Coterie of Fanatics decide that sucker-punching neo-nazis just isn’t enough — or torching electric cars doesn’t have that same rush — and mission creep themselves into Proper Fanatical Stupidity, that some truly scary people are going to start whacking and stacking in response.

I don’t want to find myself standing over what’s left of a coyote attack and suddenly realizing that unless coyotes are carrying knives, some unsettlingly well-trained monster has just decided that he has had enough, and has gone hunting.

Y’all should be worried about this, too.

There's more at the link.  Go read it all.  It's worth it.

I fit Lawdog's fourth paragraph quoted above.  The group of friends we've gathered here in north Texas includes representatives of his first and second paragraphs, too:  and most of us have added the training mentioned in his fifth paragraph to that we received from our respective armed forces during our previous lives, incarnations and careers.

We've all seen the growing propensity to anarchic, extremist violence among certain segments of our population.  We're all worried by it . . . and we've all taken steps to ensure that if said segments of our population attempt to get frisky in our general direction, we'll be ready, willing and (very) able to do something about it.  The same can be said for a fairly sizable proportion of the residents of the small town where we live.

 Therefore, around here, we don't have too many worries about squirrelly extremists.  However, where you live, can you say the same thing?  If not, go read the whole of Lawdog's article, and think about where you stand (or sit, or whatever).

Food for thought.

Peter

Will realism trump idealism in Ukraine?

 

James Howard Kunstler appears to think so.

The conclusion of “Joe Biden’s” Ukraine War fiasco looms. You can tell because The New York Times published a gigantic piece Sunday detailing how the Pentagon and the CIA actually ran all of Ukraine’s tactical operations out of a base in Wiesbaden, Germany — after building a colossal Ukraine war machine post our 2014 color revolution in Kiev. Since the very start of the hot war in 2022, we did all the targeting for the weapons we gave them and planned their every move. What a surprise! (Not.)

The motive behind all that, as conceived by US neo-cons and NATO neo-morons, was to “weaken” Russia, bust it up, and seize its resources. All the sanctions piled on only induced Russia into an import-replacement campaign that actually strengthened its economy, while the war led to a revolution in Russian war-fighting tactics and advanced weaponry. Now, the whole thing is ending in Ukraine’s defeat and the West’s humiliation.

The Times could have published this in 2023-24, but it would have been a major embarrassment for “Joe Biden” and his shadow managers moving into the election. They put it out just now because the jig is up and the paper desperately needs to pretend that it’s ahead of events to preserve the last shreds of its credibility.

Mr. Trump, the uber-realist, knows that the Russians are going to roll up in Ukraine this spring and there is increasingly not much that can be done about that, except to try to put the best face on it — which is, that it wasn’t his war. As long as the coke freak Zelensky remains in charge, Ukraine will be negotiation-unworthy, as the Russian phrase goes. So, US-Russia peace talks were largely diplomatic showbiz. Both Putin and Mr. Trump were painfully aware of this, and hence, Mr. Trump’s latest performative bluster about “more sanctions” will probably not amount to anything.

And also hence, the synchronized idiocy on display in France, Germany, and the UK. They were all-in on the neo-con scheme that is now falling apart and its failure has driven them plumb crazy. As the US drops out of the stupid proxy war, they declare their intention to take it from here and go beat-up Russia. Their war-drums are teaspoons beating on so many quiches.

There's more at the link.

I like Mr. Kunstler's description of President Trump as an "uber-realist".  I hope and pray he's right.  Heaven knows, we need a realist in the Oval Office, rather than the cloud-cuckoo-land flights of political and ideological fantasy that have polluted it for the past four years!

It's time for cold, hard realism to prevail in considering options in and for Ukraine.  Without it, this will degenerate into a never-ending slogging match that will poison Europe for generations to come.  We need to cut the Gordian knot of foreign policy fantasy that's been created by idiots over the past decade or more, and get back to realpolitik.

Peter

Thank God Putin was less aggressive and war-minded than the Biden administration

 

If you haven't yet read the two New York Times reports from last weekend about how deeply embroiled the US was in the Ukraine war, you really should find a way to do so.  If their claims are correct, there was ample justification under the laws of war for Russia to bombard NATO bases in Europe, and target senior US and allied officers for assassination as active belligerents.  It boggles the mind to realize that under President Biden - who, to be fair, may not have known just how militant his subordinates had become - the United States became literally an active co-belligerent with Ukraine in the war against Russia.  There's no other way to describe it.

The two articles (behind a paywall) are:

The Secret History of America's Involvement in the Ukraine War

Key Takeaways From America’s Secret Military Partnership With Ukraine

If you can't find non-paywalled versions of the articles, you'll find detailed summaries at these sources:

New York Times Publishes Explosive Investigation Article

Showing U.S. Military Boots on Ground in Ukraine,

and CIA Operation to Target Russian Federation with Drones and Missiles

Key Takeaways From NYT's Secret History

 Detailing US 'Shocking' Involvement In Ukraine War

Here are a few out of many points made in the articles:

• ... a New York Times investigation reveals that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood. At critical moments, the partnership was the backbone of Ukrainian military operations that, by U.S. counts, have killed or wounded more than 700,000 Russian soldiers. (Ukraine has put its casualty toll at 435,000.) Side by side in Wiesbaden’s mission command center, American and Ukrainian officers planned Kyiv’s counteroffensives. A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.

• Time and again, the Biden administration authorized clandestine operations it had previously prohibited. American military advisers were dispatched to Kyiv and later allowed to travel closer to the fighting. Military and C.I.A. officers in Wiesbaden helped plan and support a campaign of Ukrainian strikes in Russian-annexed Crimea. Finally, the military and then the C.I.A. received the green light to enable pinpoint strikes deep inside Russia itself. In some ways, Ukraine was, on a wider canvas, a rematch in a long history of U.S.-Russia proxy wars — Vietnam in the 1960s, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Syria three decades later.

•  Ultimately, the U.S. military and C.I.A. were allowed to help with strikes into Russia.

As Zero Hedge concludes:

Notably, this is essentially US officials and the NY Times also admitting that the Kremlin has all along been right when it insisted this was never really simply about Moscow vs. Kiev - but that NATO countries have militarized Ukraine and weaponized it against Russia. President Putin and Kremlin officials have been fiercely complaining about US intervention all along, but this was dismissed in the West as merely 'propaganda'.

Tell me, dear readers:  how do you feel about our government, our President, committing us to fighting a war - one which might have escalated to the use of nuclear weapons - about which we were never fully informed?  If Americans had been killed by Russian retaliation, we would unhesitatingly have blamed Russia for "aggression" - without knowing that the aggression had first been committed by US forces in, and supporting, Ukraine, including chemical and biological weapon research facilities and other destabilizing activities set up by the CIA long before Russia lost patience and invaded Ukraine?

If the New York Times is correct, America is the primary aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine war, and was from the very beginning.  Without American involvement in the years prior to the Russian invasion, the war might never have happened.  This reality requires a complete reassessment of the current situation, and certainly of America's role in the war.

As Sundance points out:

On one hand, the NYT article spills the beans and informs the public. On the other hand, their reason for purposefully spilling the beans is to create a problem for Trump and Rubio, and possibly between Trump and Rubio.

It makes sense now why Secretary of State Rubio was the first Trump official to publicly say the United States was in a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine as the justification.

On the upside, this creates an opportunity for President Trump to distance himself from the prior administration and withdraw all CIA operatives and admitted/revealed U.S. military boots on the ground in Ukraine.

President Trump could use this revelation, now public and widespread, to reset the U.S-Ukraine dynamic and withdraw all elements of prior Biden authorization from the conflict.

Will he?

Good question!

Peter