Hard Left, Exposed – USA Gov Policy

In a bizarre way, the repulsive antisemitic “Gaza” protests have had one good result. They have exposed the actual character and malevolent goals of those responsible for the variety of disruptions that have plagued the nation across recent years.

Over the past decade or so, the same hard-left activists who are now in the streets purportedly for Gaza have terrorized cities and college campuses with threatening events that were miscast by biased media outlets as “peaceful.” They all had at least one thing in common, whether they were portrayed as Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Climate Change, or supporting Gaza (actually Hamas.)

The stated purpose of these gatherings was not and is not the true motivation for the organizers. Rather, the ultimate goal is an assault on Western Civilization, free markets, and individual rights.

Despite the reality that the greatest era of prosperity and human freedom is a direct and specific result of the rise of Western Civilization over the past several hundred years, there is a subset of people who insist that it was a turn for the worse. They dislike the fact that, despite the general hike in standards of living, some have prospered more than others, and that repulses them. In their perspective, it would be better for everyone to be equally poor. Capitalism, the engine of that rise, is their target. They ignore the utter failures of rival concepts such as socialism and communism over the past century because at least everyone was equally miserable. Hence, occupy Wall Street and its numerous spinoffs.

But not everyone should be equal, as history shows.. A tiny percentage of elites, whether called Communist commissars or National Socialist fascists, carved out a privileged life for themselves. That role is now taken by powerful politicians, the Davos crowd, and shadowy Soros-style billionaires.

The United States in the 21^st century is the most successful heterogenous society that has ever existed, with equal rights and opportunities for all. That fact infuriates those who seek to produce ethnic and racial division as a means to dissemble the melting pot that produced American society, for the purpose of disrupting and attacking the country from within.

The hard left’s most successful and widespread strategy has been the rise of environmental extremism. Progressives seek to use highly exaggerated or utterly falsified studies to insist that America’s milieu of a free market and individual rights must be overthrown to “save the planet.” Once again, facts are ignored. The centralized planning societies they want to institute have a far worse record of conservation and good stewardship than their capitalist counterparts. Governments that have followed their advice have succumbed to food shortages and economic pain, with no commensurate environmental improvement. In order to dismantle free societies across the world, they seek to eliminate property rights and constitutional safeguards to allow elitists to dictate how goods and foods are produced and distributed. The end result, of course is that those elites are free to travel the globe in private jets and dine on champagne and steak while insisting that you eat bugs and take the bus.

So, what does all have to do with the Gaza protests? Hamas is a socialist-oriented terrorist group that cares nothing for individual rights. They have committed some of the worst human rights violations since the Nazis ruled Germany. Their immediate enemy is Israel, a nation which allows personal freedom and has a free market, the twin enemies of the protestors. But every nation that allows personal freedom and each society that produces prosperity through free markets is in their long-range crosshairs.

Supporting a group so loathsome opened the eyes of those who were so willing to blind themselves to the lies and evil intentions of the hard left, and to the reality that the causes they allegedly support are nothing but camouflage for their ultimate, wicked goals.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.