Shot in the Dark

What Joe Voted For

Joe Doakes, formerly of Como Park, emails:

Trump is trumpeting a trade deal with the EU.  I put no stock in trade deals, they don’t last and everybody cheats. I put more stock in the mindset that “you’ve been riding our coattails long enough, we’re cutting you loose.”  End of the free ride, end of the Marshall Plan, end of NATO riding piggyback on the US.

That’s what I was hoping Trump was going to say when Europe ignored his 2% defense spending demand during his first term, and is ignoring his 5% demand during this second term: “We’re done.” Same with Ukraine – don’t threaten more sanctions on Russia, threaten to pull every CIA officer out and cut off all funding, all intelligence sharing, all weapons transfers, until every nation in NATO either (a) steps up to declare war on Russia or (b) steps up to convince Ukraine to surrender.   Because that’s where it’s going to end up.  Ukraine is losing everything East of the river including Odessa.  Everybody knows it.  Nobody is willing to die for Ukraine, not even their own people.  So cut to the chase and surrender that territory now.  Ask for safe passage for Ukrainians who want to evacuate to the West.  Guarantee safe passage for those who wish to flee to the East.

If Trump wants to be the hero who ended the war, sanctions and bluster won’t work.  Walk away from the negotiating table.   Wait for them to come to their senses.  Then declare a victory, Mission Accomplished.

Joe Doakes

I’ve been supporting a free and independent Ukraine since most Democrats were saying the USSR was here to stay. 

But it’s time for Europe to show how much their own security really matters to them 

Posted

in

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

9 responses to “What Joe Voted For”

  1. In The Mailbox: 07.31.25 : The Other McCain

    […] Tank: Appeals Court Rejects Miami Election Delay, Gonzalez Celebrates Victory Shot In The Dark: What Joe Voted For The Political Hat: Quick Takes – Not-so-medical Aid In Dying: Vermont via Zoom; Washington […]

  2. John "Bigman" Jones Avatar
    John “Bigman” Jones

    While we’re on the subject of freeloaders . . . how’s about we remind the United Nations that there are 192 other member states who’d love a chance to host them so in order to be fair, we’re passing the baton.

    All UN diplomats out of the US by 2026. Closing Time: you don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here. If Geneva is too expensive, I hear Ghana is nice this time of year.

    Oh, and about those unpaid parking tickets . . .

  3. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    Joe’s got a great idea there…have the rest of NATO declare war on Russia, which of course by the NATO charter would require the U.S. to join, resulting in nuclear war.

    Um, no, Joe. Reality here is that Putin’s project since the fall of the Berlin Wall has been to reconstitute the USSR, bit by bit, and it’s long past time for the U.S. and its allies to start recognizing that fact, state it publicly, and arm the Ukrainians to prevent large Russian forces from appearing on the borders of Poland, Moldova, Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary. My hunch is that Ukrainians will once again volunteer for military service (about 900,000 are in uniform now) when they’re assured NATO and the EU will not hang them out to dry.

    Yes, it’s unfair that NATO nations have largely been free riders here, but there is progress being made.

  4. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    And another point; Odessa is west of the Dnipro, and if Russia is allowed to take Odessa, Ukraine basically loses its access to world markets–and becomes what the new USSR wants, a client state of Moscow. NATO and the EU have BIG reasons not to allow this.

    My peace “compromise” is that Putin and his cronies end up in jail instead of at the end of a rope. Compromise because after you’ve hit a few thousand hospitals, elementary schools, daycare centers, and tens of thousands of apartment buildings with no military significance, you’re a war criminal, and you’ve forfeited your right to breathe.

  5. ArthurRadley Avatar
    ArthurRadley

    “ I’ve been supporting a free and independent Ukraine since most Democrats were saying the USSR was here to stay.”

    What? Are you baked?

    Keeping Ukraine safe for buttsex, troons, money launderers and child traffickers is the most enthusiastically agreed upon issue between neocons and stinking leftists since Trump descended the golden escalator in 2016.

  6. John "Bigman" Jones Avatar
    John “Bigman” Jones

    Bike, why would the US be required to join NATO in attacking Russia?

    As I read it, Article 5 is defensive and the level of participation is discretionary. We could offer blankets and nothing else. What am I missing?

  7. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    John, it’s not discretionary at all. That’s part of why Hungary and Turkey are against Ukraine joining NATO–they know Russia wants to attack.

    Regarding Kremlin Tom/Arthur’s comment about “buttsex”, that would be a very Russian thing, actually. HIV infections are up by a factor of 20-40–we might start calling Russia “Svyatoy Francesco Vostok” (San Francisco East) for their apparent proclivity for the various ways of spreading AIDS.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/war-and-conflicts/military-organizations/andrey-shashkov-russia-s-war-against-ukraine-has-seen-an-explosion-in-hiv-rates/ar-AA1JrBSs?ocid=BingNewsSerp

    Really, for all of Kremlin Tom’s claims, I’d argue that a primary driver of various kinds of corruption in the former Warsaw Pact and former Soviet states is none other than the FSB. It’s not for no reason that Viktor Yanukovych and other corrupt “Ukrainian” politicians now live in Russia. Putin is protecting his own.

  8. John "Bigman" Jones Avatar
    John “Bigman” Jones

    Bikebubba, I tried to research your idea that a US response to NATO attacking Russia was not discretionary. In having trouble. Can you help me?

    I found the actual text of the treaty here:

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

    Here’s what article 5 actually says

    Article 5

    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Note this bit: … 

    … as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force…

    As far as I can tell, even if Russia launched a full scale invasion, we are not obligated to send in the Marines.  We could send a sternly worded letter.

    You disagree so I’m asking: what am I missing?

  9. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    I just tend to see “shall” as a stronger verb than you do, and that’s backed up, quite frankly, by the reluctance of many NATO countries to spend on defense. If the U.S. were not in fact bound by treaty to send armies to defend Europe, the behavior of European nations would be quite different. That’s also why Ukraine wants to be part of NATO, and it’s why Finnland joined. The agreement is that an attack on one will be seen as an attack on all.

    And yes, if Washington’s “entangling alliances” phrase comes to mind, join the club. I personally would favor a system where at least the border nations would follow the old Swiss model of universal militia service. To draw a picture, if a Russian move to take Lithuania to create a land bridge to Koenigsberg (Kaliningrad) were likely to be met by an army of half a million people picking off their officers with .338 Lapua at a range of a couple of miles, I’d bet a nickel even Putin would think twice. And yes, Putin and his minions have already suggested that Russia is entitled to a Danziger Korridor, just like Putin’s hero Schicklgruber used as a reason to pressure Poland in 1939.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.