Let me say this upfront: I was not Charlie Kirk’s biggest fan, nor was I a bitter detractor. I saw him in cynical terms and still do, as an ally of convenience on some issues, an opponent on others. As I am very much in favour of free speech, I am perfectly happy to see his image raised as a political icon, a literal free speech martyr.
Being a family man with much to live for, I venture with confidence Charlie Kirk would have rather not been assassinated. But nevertheless having been murdered by some trans-fixated politically motivated lunatic, Kirk is perhaps looking down from the heaven he believed in feeling vindicated, pleased that at least his death mightily serves a cause he strongly believed in.
I do find it interesting to see this AI generated meme appearing, showing political activist Charlie Kirk and Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska…
Both were murdered whilst on video. Iryna Zarutska was stabbed by a racially motivated serial-offender a couple weeks before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Kirk spoke out about her murder, horrified by the vile senseless crime captured in slow motion for all to see. And of course he cared, Iryna was murdered by a US national in the United States of America.
But Kirk was not keen on supporting Ukraine against mass-murderous Russia, which was what had driven Iryna to become a refugee in the USA. Had she died in Ukraine in a Russian missile strike on an apartment block, her passing would not warrant a mention, just another nameless victim of the Russian imperialism Kirk would rather not see a single US cent spent opposing.
Charlie Kirk was deeply religious, claiming this was his strongest motivation, which was probably true. He was also a nationalist, and in that particular Gott mit uns strain of American Christianity, maybe Charlie Kirk did not see the tension between his indifference to the victims of the war in Ukraine and his Christianity, possibly seeing the narrow interests of the USA and God as being one and the same. But perhaps my own aggressively secular sensibilities are showing.
So, I am happy to see him exploited as a free speech martyr, even though I did not particularly like the man, and I am confident Charlie Kirk would have been perfectly ok with that too.
I don’t think–I never say any evidence–that Kirk was indifferent to the suffering of the people of Ukraine, just that he didn’t think that the US should be involved in the conflict, that we we have enough other problems here that we shouldn’t be getting involved in other people’s conflicts.
For various reasons I disagree with him, to different degrees.
It is unfortunate, and possibly telling that you use the phrase “Gott mit uns” in reference to Kirks “strain” of American Christianity (I should note here that I am not Christian, though I know many who are very religious). It’s a very cheap shot, and it comes across as if you’re trying to tie Kirk and his co-religionists to the Nazis, when the nationalism of each is *very* *very* different.
Especially since the Nazis were anti-christian, anti-capitalist, and their notion of “nation” was “blood and soil”, basically racial, while US patriotism is not.
Not at all, to me the connotations are Prussian circa 1701, not “Nazi” circa 1933 😀 I don’t imagine the NSDAP as being very God driven.
Perry,
A very thoughtful post and one I entirely agree with.
I do not like “Christian Nationalism” at all. But Kirk had his views and was open to other ones. I think the greatest positive legacy of his murder and the one that we should never forget is that he was not shot whilst delivering a rant, a polemic or even a speech. He was shot dead for engaging in debate. That is how low the enemies of freedom have become.
He was quite literally shot dead for “violating” a “safe” space. The bitter irony.
A good speech. A very good speech indeed, and that is not ironic in the least.
I hasten to qualify that i know nothing about Charlie Kirk’s opinions about the Ukraine/Russia conflict. Maybe you are wrong about said opinions, but i strongly approve of the values that you express.
I think this is on topic as it was sparked by the Kirk assassination: Victor Davis Hanson writes, asks, “is STEM the only thing being taught in universities that is not actively harmful?” Or words to that effect.
The Humanities having been hijacked long ago by those cheering Kirk’s assassination. It had me seriously asking: what would be missed if we shut down public funding of these odious Uni departments? Any department with “studies” or “science” in its name.
This whole episode does prompt the question: have we reached a tipping point in the fight against the insane Left?
Descending down to Earth:
There is this interesting case of a student arrested for what appear to me as acts protected by the First Amendment.
I’d be interested in knowing from bobby or other legal scholars on what basis that woman could be arrested.
In any case, i am happy that her name will be on the internet forever: it was worth arresting her just for that.
What were Kirk’s views on Ukraine? Not familiar with any statements in that regard.
@ Snorri – as later reporting and video makes clear, the young woman was not arrested for her speech, which probably is First Amendment-protected as you say, but for assault (she clearly pushed and shoved several people) and disorderly conduct – IOW, not for anything she said, but for what she did.
llater,
llamas
There were a number of issues I disagreed with Charlie Kirk on, abortion, religion in general, and I many of his views on marriage and relationships. I did not disagree with him on Ukraine, but I certainly understand people might think differently.
However, I think it is important to comment on this idea that his Christian views somehow compel him to insist the government sends money to Ukraine. To be clear I am not a Christian, but I have head this argument a lot. A person can have compassion on the suffering and offer to help, and that is surely something that a Christian or any person who aspires to be “good” should do. But that is a very far cry from that same person demanding that the government do it. I’d argue that compassion for the suffering would rather demand that you didn’t get the government involved since they usually screw everything up, but perhaps in martial matters that is less the case. We saw this with the earthquake of criticism about shutting down USAID: “Don’t Christians care about solving AIDS in Africa?”. Yes they do, and they do it by sending money and people to help with that problem. They just don’t send it through the hands of bureaucrats with sticky fingers, who use these poor victims to manipulate and achieve political ends.
If people want to support Ukraine they should go ahead and do it, no government policy should prevent it, and certainly Ukraine should be able to buy weapons from American arms dealers. But I don’t see how we can justify the government forcibly taking money from unwilling tax payers to advance their agenda, or, come to that, how doing so is a Christian thing.
But Kirk’s importance was not really about any of these issues with one exception. He was about freedom of speech. He was about liberating the academy from the monoculture of thought that made it impossible for all but the bravest of students to speak their mind. He provided “safe spaces” where conservatives, Christians, libertarians, and even the growing number of non political “wtf is going on with our culture” people to express their views without the inevitable tsunami of criticism. The academy has been rotting our culture with both their socialist views and lately with their just batshit crazy ideas, for thirty years. Kirk was the FIRST and perhaps only person who has done anything to reverse this trend. And this explosion of free speech that he released was the reason we do not have a President Kamala Harris — a woman who may be the stupidest, least qualified, most inarticulate, most unprincipled person to ever run for office anywhere, never mind the Presidency of the USA.
I’m sure she would have continued the “any amount of money you want for as long as you want” to Ukraine as with Biden, and if Ukraine is the only issue one cares about, then perhaps she would have been a better choice. But as for me, and most Americans, Ukraine is a far off land we couldn’t find on a map, and there are vastly more pressing issues for us to use our money, time and energy on.
If Ukraine is the only thing one cares about then Kirk is not the guy. But for people who looked at a broader range of issues, or for people who agree with me that free speech is the foundation of a free society Charlie Kirk was a hero, and his assassination as devastating as the assassination of Martin Luther King.
Perhaps Kirk preferred to deal with the issues that most concerned him and about which he was most knowledgeable — staying within his intellectual wheelhouse, as it were, and yielding Ukraine to people who are more knowledgeable on that subject. E.g., people like you.
@Snorri Godhi
Regarding the student’s arrest, our courts have held that some reasonable restrictions concerning the time, manner and place of expressing free speech are allowed. It is not acceptable, for example, to stand at the tomb of the unknown soldier and yell about the murderous American troops. Though you can certainly do so in the vast majority of public spaces in America.
There is not more passionate advocate of free speech than I am, but this seems reasonable to me. It is a big country, so sorry, no, you can’t yell your obscenities at a funeral. Do it if you like, just not here, now and in such an obnoxious manner.
So the police had some justification in arresting this woman. But, to be clear, unlike in Britain, she will be marched off and released without any charges being brought. No doubt she will be spouting her toxic garbage somewhere else within an hour or so.
BTW, why are these people so often fat and extremely ugly? Maybe all that toxic bile within them manifests in their appearance? (See what I did there? That’s freedom of speech too.)
The parallels are obvious – both were murdered by people who shouldn’t have been able to do so, either due to the incarceration for public safety they deserved but didn’t get, or lax security at a public talk by a figure who was the target of nutters.
Both were worth far more to society than their worthless killers who hopefully will both face the death penalty.
Despite agreeing with Fraser Orr more than Perry in regards Kirk on Ukraine, I have to admit grudging respect to Perry’s courage for being willing to post something about Charlie containing a clearly disapproving point.
I expect it will cost him a few friendships, and a lot of “ally of convenience”-ships.
@JuliaM
Both were worth far more to society than their worthless killers who hopefully will both face the death penalty.
The guy who murdered the Ukrainian girl on the train will most likely get away with a mental defect defense, either meaning they will commit him to a mental health facility, or if convicted he is unlikely to get the death penalty because the Supreme Court has held that people with mental disabilities cannot be subject to the death penalty. Though on the plus side, the situation in American state prisons is so bad that the death penalty might well be considered a small mercy.
As for the other guy, ironically one of the methods of execution in Utah is the firing squad. So this pathetic little soy boy will be strapped down to a chair, have a target put over his heart, and have his heart shredded into pieces by four rifle rounds. No doubt tormented by fear. I wonder if he will feel even one tenth of the fear and pain he has caused to others. Unfortunately, it is likely this will take about twenty years.
Fraser
He’s a purty boy, albeit not as purty as his partner, and not remotely big enough to be able to defend himself. His prison sentence will seem like twenty millennia of fear and pain.
Mr Kirk and the Ukrainian lady never met – but, without knowing it, they had the same enemies.
It is difficult, difficult but NECESSARY, to look beyond the antics of the “liberal” international establishment in Ukraine over many years before 2022 – Mr Kirk was well aware of these antics, and found it difficult to look beyond them – but it is RIGHT to look beyond them. Yes various people in Ukraine have been close (much too close) to people like Trudeau of Canada, Biden in the United States, Macron in France (and so on) for many years – but that does NOT mean we can ignore Mr Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Yes the American (and international) left profited from Ukraine for many years and wanted to impose their agenda (on sexuality, on third world migration, on everything) upon Ukraine – but this in no way excuses Mr Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. And Mr Putin knew that he was starting a terrible war – Liz Truss (then Foreign Secretary) went to Russia and begged them not to invade, warning him that the Western powers would send military support to Ukraine, but received only mockery for getting the details of geography wrong, which-was-beside-the-point.
“Please do not start a terrible war” was her message – “tell us what the location of these various places is” was the mocking reply.
It is also a fact that Mr Putin is-himself-a-leftist – on everything from government health care, to abortion, to his sick alliance with Islam and also the People’s Republic of China, to “gun control”, to just about everything.
The enemy of my enemy is often NOT my friend – just because Mr Putin fell out with the World Economic Forum crowd, the international leftist establishment (who he had once been very much allied with) this does NOT make him a friend.
I repeat – Mr Putin, contrary to what some people believe, is in no way a conservative.
There is also this important difference – when someone like Elon Musk tells the World Economic Forum to “Go Fuck Yourselves” they huffed and puffed (and, via the left media and social media, got their minions to vandalize his cars and attack dealerships), but did NOT kill him.
If a Russian businessman told Mr Putin to “Go Fuck Yourself” that businessman would either be sent to a camp, or just murdered.
Not Computer Science, surely? 🙂
Wow – talk about pounding square pegs into round holes…
“But Kirk was not keen on supporting Ukraine against mass-murderous Russia, which was what had driven Iryna to become a refugee in the USA. Had she died in Ukraine in a Russian missile strike on an apartment block, her passing would not warrant a mention, just another nameless victim of the Russian imperialism Kirk would rather not see a single US cent spent opposing.”
Yowzers – what a rhetorical stretch. I suppose I admire your chutzpah.
The second paragraph’s preachy attempt to draw some rhetorical line between Kirk’s religious faith and what he *should* have believed about Ukraine comes off as an (I hope unintentional) homage to self-centered Grauniad columnists (Palestinians attack Jews because race/gender/climate…).
Really?
The entwined stories capsulized in that AI image have NOTHING to do with your pet issue of the Russian-Ukraine war.
These two proximate events – their circumstances, causes, and the callous, politicized reaction of the Left – have, in aggregate, caused a shock wave that has broken through the complacency/compliance of many Americans (and many Westerners, especially in the Anglosphere). The mask has slipped and many apolitical, low-information Americans now see the woke Left for what they are. They understand that even if they don’t care about politics – politics cares very much about them.
Many in the UK and elsewhere (including Argentina!) see the establishment’s attitude to the assassination as confirming their own local struggles with the woke, post-national Left.
Lots of connections – lots to discuss – but only the most tenuous to the Ukraine war… which has nothing to do with the headline of the post.
Where are they both now?
Atheists would say that both the lady and the gentleman are nowhere – that they have ceased to exist.
Catholics would say that they are both in Purgatory (which need not be a terrible place – see Tolkien’s short story “Leaf By Niggle”) being shown how they made an error by not being in the Catholic church – but will eventually go to Heaven, by the mercy of God.
Other Christians (and Jews – but then according to Judaism, righteous atheists go to Heaven, although it may be a shock for them) would say that they are awaiting the last judgement – and that God will, at the last judgement, accept them into Heaven.
We just do not know for sure – some people have faith and some people do not.
Snorri…I forgot about “Computer Science”. It absolutely gets a pass…although I’d prefer it had a different name. “Computer engineering”? But I’m a science snob!
If you’d like to understand just how important Kirk was to the conservative movement, you might want to watch this when Vice President Vance does the first Charlie Kirk show after his assassination. In particular notice that the caption does not say “JD Vance, Vice President of the United States”, but rather “JD Vance, Longtime Friend of Charlie Kirk.” Undoubtedly deliberate, since the Vice President thinks the latter is a higher honorific than the former.
Just, “Computing”?
Yeah, I share your thing about “studies”. Any qualification that includes “studies” in it’s title is total bollocks. The worst I heard was Wolverhampton Poly did a course on “Modern Studies”.
Then you really didn’t understand what I wrote 😉 I didn’t particularly like Charlie Kirk (that said I did respect him, these are two different things), just as I don’t like J.D. Vance or Trump, with much less respect. But as I happen to concur with some of the things they say & do, I’m happy to quote and agree them when it suits my particular world view.
I wrote this with non-US ‘conservatives’ and ‘libertarians’ rightly swept up in the horror of Charlie Kirk’s assassination in mind. From an admittedly heterogenous Euro-Right perspective (whatever that means), take what aligns but don’t swallow the whole MAGA schtick because their notions of US national interests will not coincide with your interests on more than a few issues, such as trade and defence. We share many enemies but never imagine we are “on the same side”. A great deal of British history post-1945 involves the US making sure the UK cannot actually act in it’s own interests, even if we shared a major enemy in the Soviet Union.
Paul:
I agree that Putin is in no sense a conservative. The only term which seems to fit him is fascist. I do not mean that as an insult, but his entire style of government is fascistic. His imperialist war against Ukraine is just the latest and worst example.
Perry:
I agree. It has all been downhill since Suez.
Perry – President Trump has continued the flow of arms to Ukraine, just as he did from 2017 to 2021.
He has also imposed trade sanctions on India for buying Russian oil – sanctions that have had the unfortunate effect of pushing India closer to (not further away from) the regimes of Social Justice bandits that, sadly, control both Russia and China.
The American Administration have done everything they reasonably can do in relation to Ukraine and done some harm to the United States by doing so – for example the harm done to relations with India – which could have been an important ally against both the Communist Party regime in China, and against Islamic influence in the world.
Yet you seem (seem) to be complaining.
You are not alone in this – a lot people seem to be complaining, even though the Administration, in relation to Ukraine, has done a lot (indeed did a lot from 2017 to 2021 as well).
If the complaints (NOT from you personally – but in general) continue, the Administration may decide to cut their losses and walk away.
What is needed is praise and gratitude – President Zelensky, and his supporters, should adopt the tone that Prime Minister of Israel uses. Not the Prime Minister of Israel is actually any good in terms of policy (he should have gone into Gaza at-once after October the 7th 2023 and ended the war in a week – if it had been done AT ONCE even the “international community” would not have complained about enemy casualties, drawing out the war for two years, in an effort to keep DOWN enemy casualties, has been an utter disaster), but he does understand what language to use when dealing with Washington.
Had a different tone been adopted – then such things as the failure, in 2019-20, to release the files on the corruption of Mr Biden, and many others, in relation to Ukraine, might have been forgiven.
President Zelensky has heaped praise on some people – unfortunately the wrong people, such as former Prime Minister of Trudeau of Canada – who he claimed as a role model in terms of policy (given how much Mr Trudeau is despised by conservatives, in the United States as well as Canada, this was a very foolish thing for President Zelensky to do).
I support the Ukrainian cause – but, unfortunately, President Zelensky has been badly advised. He needs (very much needs) to get rid of advisers with links to the “international community” (the United Nations, the European Union, various vast Corporations, and so on) – which is an enemy of liberty in the United States and everywhere else.
A person can not, at the same time, ask for help from the Trump/Vance Administration (and from American conservatives generally) AND be friends with the “international community” – who (in their political-sexual doctrines) are very much allied with the sort of thinking of the murderer of Mr Kirk – and the people who celebrate his murder.
If someone is a friend of the international community, the United Nations, the European Union, the government of Sir Keir Starmer in Britain (whom President Trump pretends to like – but, of course, knows very well that Sir Keir is an opponent), and so on, he is no friend of conservatives (for example Vice President Vance) – a person has to choose whom they wish to be a friend of.
“Do not confuse one man with the Ukrainian people as a whole – they have a right to NOT to be ruled by a puppet regime imposed by Moscow”.
Quite so, I AGREE.
I am reminded of the Yalta Conference.
He had long suspected it – but at Yalta it became obvious to Winston Churchill that his “friend” Franklin Roosevelt had a totally different world view from himself. Historians, and others, have been whitewashing “FDR” for many years – but the bitter truth is that Franklin Roosevelt was an utterly vile person.
Had Franklin Roosevelt lived, and had Winston Churchill continued to be Prime Minister (of course neither thing happened) it would have been impossible for them to continue to work together.
President Trump will be all smiles and handshakes when he comes over to meet Sir Keir Starmer – but he knows perfectly well that Sir Keir, and the British government (elected and unelected – officials as well as politicians) despises the basic principles of the United States – and does NOT wish Americans well.
It is hard to be an ally of someone who hates-and-despises the most basic principles of your nation (Freedom of Speech, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and-so-on), and wishes ill to you and everyone you care about.
Perry, you are obsessed with Ukraine. Ok, that is your right and business. But pushing the Ukraine issue onto Charlie Kirk is ridiculous. They are not connected. There are other issues beside Ukraine.
For the interested, UNZ have some more ‘nuanced’ articles about Kirk, from the quite plausible assertion that Kirk was just a Trump mouthpiece who more or less just did what he was instructed to, to the inevitable and more far fetched ‘Israel did it’.
Jacob – I do not believe that Perry is “obsessed” with Ukraine, he just wants millions of Ukrainians to be free to rule themselves in an independent nation.
I take the same position.
Some may point out that the British left have a long history of contacts with America – this is true, but highly misleading.
For example, the late Professor Harold Laski, Chairman of the Labour Party and someone who argued (to the, justified, horror of Prime Minister Clement Atlee) that Conservatives or Liberals should only be “allowed” to take office in Britain again, if they formally promised not to undo any of the “Progressive” measures of the Labour Government (allowing elections to take place – but not allowing the democratically elected government to undo “Progressive” measures – would make “democracy” a hollow shell, an utter farce) had lots of contacts with important people in the United States.
Unfortunately Professor Laski’s contacts with important people in the United States were with important DREADFUL people in the United States – people who wished to destroy the most basic American principles.
Indeed Professor Laski’s 1948 book “The American Democracy” might as well have been titled “The American Democracy – And How To Destroy It”.
The present British government, both elected and unelected (officials and politicians) is very much in tune with the late Professor Laski – as people such as Vice President Vance know well.
Again hard to be an ally of a regime that wants to destroy you, and destroy everyone you care about. And the government of the United Kingdom is NOT freakish – sadly it is typical of the international community. It is best seen as a branch, in the United Kingdom, of the international establishment – with their Agenda 2030, and-so-on.
Jacob – I do not believe that Perry is “obsessed” with Ukraine, he just wants millions of Ukrainians to be free to rule themselves in an independent nation. I take the same position.
I do not dispute or disagree.
He is obsessed in the sense that he grafts it onto issues where it is not related, like Charlie Kirk.
Paul,
“he just wants millions of Ukrainians to be free to rule themselves in an independent nation.”
I agree with that, and I think that Kirk did too. But what we didn’t agree with is the idea that the US should provide all of the money and manpower necessary to make that happen. I fear that the US attempting that would result in a nuclear WIII.
Perry,
“A great deal of British history post-1945 involves the US making sure the UK cannot actually act in its own interests, even if we shared a major enemy in the Soviet Union.” is rubbish.
That’s not what I was ever asking for, nor most Ukrainians either 😀
In a rational world, significant US aid should not even be needed if more of Europe was actually applying themselves to the problem.
And why is that?
Perhaps Jacob – although there was a link of sorts.
Chris in Texas – European governments, including the British government, have provided a vast amount of support to Ukraine. Ukraine may still lose the war (I make no predictions – either way), but it will not be for lack of external arms, money and training.
One difficulty is that we are not really just opposing Russia – for all the talk of “North Korean” soldiers the soldiers from the Central Asian Republics, and from Muslims in Russia itself, are vastly more important. But the Western powers do not like discussing that – for fear of being called “Islamophobic”.
Mr Putin could not really give a damn about Islam – indeed he made his name killing Muslims. His media outlets do not push wall-to-wall Anti-Semitism because Mr Putin loves Islam or even because Mr Putin sincerely hates Jews (he is indifferent) – they push hatred of Jews in order to attract Muslim recuits for the meat grinder, and-it-works.
And there is China – the largest (by far) industrial power on Earth – Mr Putin is serving the People’s Republic of China regime, and the PRC is the principle enemy of the United States.
Victory for Mr Putin in Ukraine is victory for the People’s Republic of China Commmunist Party regime – the principle enemy of the United States.
Given Charlie Kirk blamed Zelenskyy for the war & all the dead, no, I don’t think he did.
@Perry de Havilland (Prague)
In a rational world, significant US aid should not even be needed if more of Europe was actually applying themselves to the problem.
I agree. And especially were they not actually funding the Russian side by their ongoing purchase of Russian oil and liquified natural gas. See here.
Don’t worry though, they have a plan to phase this out by 2028. Yeah, really, in three years. I think everyone in Ukraine will be dead by then so probably another political promise they don’t have to fulfill.
The Ukrainian lady had a BLM poster on the wall in her room – because, like so many women, the lady was compassionate. The poster was NOT there as a sign of support for Marxism – the lady most likely had no idea that BLM is a Marxist organisation, the poster was there because the lady did not want black people to be killed (and neither do I – I do NOT want black people to be killed) and she was LIED to, the media told her that Mr George Floyd was murdered by a “racist cop” – in reality the “cop” was not “racist” and Mr Floyd died of the drugs he willingly consumed, but the lady did-not-know-all-that.
Then came her terrible last moments, with not just the murderer (who had already been released 14 times after various crimes – no wonder people often do not report crimes any more, so the media can say “crime is down”), but also with everyone around her (who were from the same demographic as the murderer) showing total indifference, no one tried to help her as she bled to death.
It is all very sad – the world is NOT as the media, and the education system, told her that it is. I wish the lady could have found out the truth without being murdered.
Perry,
Your quote of Kirk doesn’t blame Zelenskyy for the war, it blames him for regurgitating DNC talking points And being an ungrateful, petulant child in his meeting with Trump.
Perry,
“Why is that?” Because Eisenhower’s decision on Suez was not a “great deal” and the “US making sure” is just flat out ridiculous.
Context Perry – Context.
The social media post from Mr Kirk was just after the visit from President Zelensky to Washington – the visit where the first people President Zelensky met were leading Congressional Democrats who instructed President Zelensky on how best to insult the new Administration (although that is NOT how they explained it to him – they told him to “talk tough”, KNOWING that is the last thing you do with someone like J.D. Vance).
They, the Congressional Democrats, did that for their benefit – the benefit of the Democrats, not the benefit of President Zelensky or of Ukraine, but he trusted them and said the things they told him to say (the unshaven condition and black costume appear to have been his own idea, he often appears like that – he should have shaved and put on a suit and tie, he should need to be told to do that).
President Zelensky should not have met them (the Congressional Democrats) at all – at least till not after he had met the President and Vice President.
President Zelensky was very badly advised – very badly advised indeed. The Gentleman needs different advisers.
None of this is rocket science.
First, in private, you humbly apologize for not, in 2019-2020, releasing the information on the corruption of Joseph Biden and other Democrats. Then, in public, you thank President Trump for all the help he has given Ukraine since 2017 (yes 2017) and say you would love a compromise peace, but, sadly, Mr Putin can not be trusted to keep his promises. You come out with so much praise and thanks that the conversation never really turns to proposals for a peace deal with Mr Putin (because you have come out with so much praise and thanks that the people you are talking to are too flattered to turn to anything else).
However, President Zelensky is ONE PERSON – his listening to bad advise should not be allowed to obscure the fact (and it is a fact) that the freedom of the millions of Ukrainians is a JUST CAUSE.
In 1917 the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was David Lloyd-George – a corrupt person.
This was NOT relevant – as the reasons the United States went to war in 1917 (by an overwhelming vote of both the Senate and the House – NOT the whim of President Wilson) included the sinking of many (not one – many) American ships by the Germans, and a campaign of bombings and shootings (by Imperial Germany) inside-the-United-States, and German plans to use Mexican forces to attack the United States – indeed some attacks by Mexican groups had already-taken-place (Berlin was promising big rewards if there were larger scale attacks).
The case for war with Germany in 1917 was overwhelming (including the largest attack in New York City before 9/11) – and so the behaviour of David Lloyd-George had to be overlooked.
“Remember the Vice President comes from great poverty, was cruelly treated as a child and his own, drug addicted, mother tried to kill him – he is also an ex soldier, do NOT talk-tough to him – say how much you admire him, what he has achieved in life, and the passionate sincerity of his beliefs – say how much you SHARE his beliefs, on Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and so on, and how, as soon as is possible, Ukraine will have these things – which Russia under Mr Putin does NOT have”.
“With President Trump say how grateful you are for past support, and say, in PRIVATE, how sorry you are that you did not help him when you should have done in 2019-2020 – say that you did not really understand the situation, you had only just become President of Ukraine, you were very badly advised….”
That should have been on the briefing notes that any competent diplomat or Ukrainian foreign ministry official should have given to President Zelensky (a competent, very competent, actor) to study and base his behaviour upon.
But it is water under the bridge now – we have moved on from this incident.
Kirk was just a Trump mouthpiece who more or less just did what he was instructed to
This could not be more wrong. The opposite was true. Kirk had an immense influence on the President, including for example, his nomination of Vance which was really at the prompting of Kirk, Carlson and Trump Jr. against basically everyone else in the R party. And Vance has turned out to be a spectacular VP, and will no doubt be a spectacular President for eight years. FWIW, I like Vance a lot more than Trump, I think, for example, that Vance is far more committed to the ideas of DOGE than Trump ever was. And the ideas of DOGE are the only possible way to save the west from collapse. FFS Trump’s first VP Was Mike Pence!
But it also totally misses the point of TPUSA and Kirk. On this very blog for a decade I have heard people talking about the pernicious influence of the academy on public life as it is poisoned by the vilest ideas. I think Paul Marks, to his credit, has been a particularly loud commenter on this, but we all have. And all our bellyaching has done nothing. However, this young guy comes along and builds an organization that is transforming the discourse on college campuses, talking about the things you aren’t allowed to talk about, creating chapters where students can talk about conservative and libertarian principles and not be isolated, criticized, canceled and expelled. A movement that transformed young people from a solid left wing voting block into a 50/50 block. An organization that restored free speech to our universities.
This is nothing to do with Trump, it is something he created ex nihilo, and I don’t doubt Kirk is directly responsible for Trump’s victory in 2024. As I have said before, his loss in incalculable.
Chris in Texas – neither President Eisenhower or Secretary of State John Foster Dulles were, in private, hostile to the Suez operation.
Indeed John Foster Dulles asked Eden (years later) – why did you call the operation off, “why did you not go on?”.
John Foster Dulles was ill at the key time in 1956 – and Prime Minister Eden did not to Washington and talk to President Eisenhower (relying instead on public statements – which did NOT reflect President Eisenhower’s real position).
Prime Minister Eden was also outwitted by Chancellor Harold Macmillan – who was “first in – first out”, encouraging Eden into the Suez operation and then turning on him (in order to become Prime Minister himself).
Harold Macmillan said there was a “run on the Pound” – but “forgot” to mention that the Pound was absurdly overvalued (which the American Dollar is right now – this absurd treatment of the fiat Dollar as “the world reserve currency”) which was crucifying British exports (just as American exports have been crucified by the over valued Dollar in recent years).
Fixed exchange rates are automatic if countries are using commodity money (gold, silver, whatever) – but can should NOT be attempted with fiat money.
This was one of the points I used to argue with Dr Sean Gabb about – of course if both Britain and America were using gold (or any commodity) as money, then there would be a “fixed exchange rate” – but if they are only PRETENDING that their money is gold, if it is really fiat currency (as the Pound and the Dollar really are) then a “fixed exchange rate” is a pipe dream – and to seek to maintain one will drain the foreign currency reserves.
Government of Argentina please note – trying to maintain an artificially high exchange rate for the Peso will crucify Argentinian exports and suck in imports.
Fraser Orr – interesting points Sir. A lot to think about.
I am glad that Mark, in his usual emphatic style, agrees with an opinion that i expressed more tentatively a few months ago.
I wrote that destroying Hamas should have been the first priority, and doing so as quickly as possible (for PR purposes) should have been the second, with freeing the hostages a distant third.
The more time goes by, the more it seems that, to Netanyahu, neither destroying Hamas nor freeing the hostages are priorities.
I emphasize ‘seems’ because i do not know how free Netanyahu is from interference by Israel’s notorious judiciary.
In my previous comment:
Mark –> Paul Marks.
As for India being pushed closer to Russia and China: I fear that, too.
I give it a less than 50% chance, but that is not reassuring.
For sure, Trump (AND the EU) should do something about India’s imports of Russian oil. But i fear that Trump did the wrong thing.
Chris:
Didn’t know that a foreign leader could get a million people dead, just by regurgitating DNC talking points.
Are you aware that JD Vance blames Eisenhower’s decision (rightly or wrongly) for Europe ending up relying on the US for its security?
Perhaps what i most like about JD is that he criticizes European policies without being Manichean, ie without saying “we are always right and you are always wrong”.
And he sounds sincere when he acknowledges American failings, he does not sound weaselly.
Perry said
“That’s not what I was ever asking for, nor most Ukrainians either 😀”
In that case, you don’t care if Ukraine loses.
There is zero chance that Ukraine can force Putin back to the original borders without massive US assistance. Putin doesn’t care what European governments say, he knows that they are almost impotent militarily.
Paul and others,
Thank you for expanding on what I was saying and highlighting other aspects that I hadn’t really considered.
Typing on a tablet with median nerve damage and three strokes is very slow going and so my missives are always going to be shorter than I would like.
@Chris in Texas
Putin doesn’t care what European governments say, he knows that they are almost impotent militarily.
That’s not true at all. The British, French and Polish military are all quite substantial, certainly more substantial that the Ukrainian military was at the start of the conflict and the German economy, built on the back of American tax payer subsidies, has more than enough resources in terms of money and manufacturing capacity to support any action. Europe also has a quite substantial manufacturing capability of some of the most advanced weapons in the world including some of the very best fighter jets, tanks, advanced missiles and drones.
But of course a lot of Europe is utterly supine to the Russians since they are so dependent on Russian oil and LNG. Russia could crash their economy by turning off the taps. It is worth pointing out that Trump pointed this out to the Germans ten years ago, but they laughed at the incompetent redneck from America.
The way to bring Russia to heel is to drill baby drill. Flood the market with cheap oil which will dramatically improve the economies of everywhere except Russia then negotiate a settlement. However, small wars are very profitable to some people, and they sure as hell needed something to replace the massive income stream from Afghanistan. Maybe they just got lucky with Putin’s belligerence, but I guess someone somewhere is usually starting a war with someone else.
Anybody know the fastest growing stock for two years running? Palintar, the drone manufacturer. Up I believe 1100% since Jan 2024.
Chris:
Maybe that is true. Maybe.
(And it is not clear what “US assistance” means to you: does it involve troops on the ground? because, trust me, nobody wants that.)
All the same, it is a huge mistake in negotiations to make such an admission.
There is no harm in making said admission in a comment on Samizdata. But for any American involved in negotiations to admit to that, is nothing short of insanity.
The plain fact is that, without sound security guarantees, there is no incentive for the Ukrainians to agree to give up land, even if they have no hope to reclaim it.
And by “sound security guarantees” i do not mean a piece of paper.
Snorri,
“Sound security guarantees” = American troops on the ground the incentive is no more Ukrainian lives lost fighting when there is no hope of reclaiming the land.
Wrong.
You are confusing giving up on a legal claim, with continuing to fight.
Incidentally, i agree with Fraser’s latest comment until he starts getting conspiratorial:
But that is a minor disagreement — at least, from my point of view.
Fraser,
Europe’s insistence on green energy has made a mockery of British, French, and German military power. Poland’s alone has its act together.
Financially, the big three are almost destitute.
Starmer, macron, and merz can promise strong support, but they can’t provide it and they know it.the three of them are Europe’s answer to Obama; stupid, ignorant, and corrupt.
Snorri,
Some people = democrat run NGOs.
@Chris in Texas
“Sound security guarantees” = American troops on the ground the incentive is no more Ukrainian lives lost fighting when there is no hope of reclaiming the land.
They could also deploy a battalion of elves riding unicorns firing magic pixie dust encrusted arrows, and that would stop it too. And that is about as likely as anything more than a token force of American troops on the ground in Ukraine.
The American public want another Vietnam about as much as they want stinky French cheese on their Big Macs.
Snorri,
You said “ Wrong.
You are confusing giving up on a legal claim, with continuing to fight.”
If Ukraine won’t give up any legal claims and Putin continues to fight, what other options does Ukraine have but fight?
Fraser,
I was there in 70 and was friends with many of my Vietnamese counterparts.
What went down in 75 was gut wrenching.
NOT AGAIN!
Frankly Ukraine would be crazy to accept “security guarantees” from USA or indeed anyone who doesn’t think they have real skin in the game.
USA isn’t going to go to war for Ukraine (or for the Baltics, Scandinavians or Poland either), everyone knows that. Ukraine & other European nations should buy US weapons when they are better than alternatives (well, the stuff that isn’t dependent on US whims regarding their use), but relying on direct American involvement for security when US security isn’t *absolutely* also threatened means depending on mercurial US political machinations. Unwise.
Perry,
I agree with you completely.
South Vietnam is an example of what happens when a country does depend on mercurial US political machinations.
Unfortunately,Zelenskyy seems to be crazy.
He is not even close to crazy, he is just in the position of having to take whatever he can get from absolutely anyone for his nation to have any chance of coming out of this intact.
This is, of course, not a reply to yours truly.
But i wish to clarify that i wrote SOUND security guarantees, and specified that that excludes pieces of paper.
A sound security guarantee that Zelenskyy might be wise to accept, is nukes.
Preferably on submarines.
@Snorri Godhi
A sound security guarantee that Zelenskyy might be wise to accept, is nukes.
Preferably on submarines.
Genie: President Zelenskyy you have one wish, what would it be?
Zelenskyy: Could I have a battalion of elves riding unicorns with magic pixie dust arrows?
Genie: No seriously, what would you like that is feasible?
Zelenskyy: Can I have some fully armed boomer submarines?
Genie: So, those unicorns, would you like them with yellow and blue horns to match your flag?
If he is in the position of having to take whatever he can get from absolutely anyone —
Then his nation doesn’t have any chance of coming out of this intact.
I agree with Fraser, he’s not getting nukes.
I’m pretty sure he’s not getting American troops.
All he’s going to get is more dead Ukrainians.
Unless you have a better idea.
So, how do you think Zelenskyy gets less dead Ukrainians? Surrender to Russia? I’d say the best idea is the strategic “oil & gas strike plan” that Ukraine is now pursuing. That and moves against the shadow fleet that are belatedly now happening is how Ukraine gets the upper hand by beggaring Russia.
And the prize for “totally missing the point” must go to our esteemed Attorney General Pam Bondi what says in response to Kirk’s assassination “there is free speech and there is hate speech, and there is no place for that after what happened to Charlie…. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
The awards are not till next week, but she looks a shoo in for the “learning exactly the wrong lesson” medal too. And of course there is nobody even close to her in the competition for “trampling on a man’s grave” trophy.
I really had great hopes for Bondi, but she is doing and saying more and more dumb things. I’m thinking she will be the first of the Florida mafia to be moving back to the sunshine state.