Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Who’s in Charge?
At his confirmation hearing on Thursday, General James Mattis, warning that the nations of the north Atlantic were “under the biggest attack since World War II” and described Russia as the “principal threat” facing the United States. He called NATO “the most successful military alliance probably in modern history, maybe ever.”
After giving a full-throated defense of NATO, Mattis said he supported the European Reassurance Initiative, which right now is pouring troops and heavy equipment into eastern Europe to protect it against Russia. “Since Yalta,” Mattis said,
… we have a long list of times we’ve tried to engage positively with Russia. We have a relatively short list of successes in that regard.
I’m all for engagement but we also have to recognize reality and what Russia is up to and there’s decreasing number of areas where we can engage cooperatively and increasing number of areas where we’re going to have to confront Russia … I have very modest expectations about areas of cooperation with Mr. Putin.
He also said, “If we did not have NATO today we would need to create it.”
He described it as urgently important to take coordinated action to shore up the alliance against Russia:
I think right now the most important thing is that we recognize the reality of what we deal with Mr. Putin and we recognize that he is trying to break the North Atlantic alliance and that we take the steps — the integrated steps, diplomatic, economic, military and the alliance steps, the working with our allies to defend ourselves where we must.
In a written questionnaire, he wrote that he believes the alliance “must harness renewed political will to confront and walk back aggressive Russian actions and other threats to the security of its members.”
Congressman Mike Pompeo, Trump’s pick to lead the CIA, accused the Russian leadership of “aggressive action” in meddling in the US elections, “asserting itself aggressively” by occupying part of Ukraine and of doing “doing nearly nothing” to destroy Islamic State. Of Russian hacking, he said, “It’s going to require an incredibly robust American response.”
Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson (who, oddly, said he hadn’t ever discussed Russia with Trump) said he favored maintaining U.S. sanctions against Russia; he also averred that NATO allies were right to be alarmed by Moscow’s growing aggression. He blamed an “absence of American leadership” for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and said the United States should have taken stronger actions to deter this.
General John Kelly, nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security, agreed “with high confidence” with the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian hacking.
So I was thinking, “Okay, perhaps this won’t be so bad. There’s clearly a big difference between what Trump says and what he means. These appointments suggest he’s not utterly clueless.”
But this morning, I look at the news and see that Trump has gone out of his way to cause panic in Europe. “Asked whom he trusted more, Merkel, a longtime US ally, or Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump called it a draw — at least for now. ‘I start off trusting both, but let’s see how long that lasts,’ he said. ‘May not last long at all.'”
The Times quoted Trump as saying he was interested in making “good deals with Russia,” floating the idea of lifting sanctions that were imposed as the U.S. has sought to punish the Kremlin for its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and military support of the Syrian government.
“They have sanctions on Russia — let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia,’’ Trump said, according to the Times. “For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it.’’ …
Repeating a criticism of NATO he made during his campaign, Trump said that while trans-Atlantic military alliance is important, it “has problems.”
“It’s obsolete, first because it was designed many, many years ago,” Trump said in the Bild version of the interview. “Secondly, countries aren’t paying what they should” and NATO “didn’t deal with terrorism.” The Times quoted Trump saying that only five NATO members are paying their fair share.
I have a few questions. First, why did he nominate a cabinet full of men who are (in my view) quite realistic about Russia if he’s really of the opinion that Russia is ready to make “good deals?” Does he really think that NATO doesn’t “deal with terrorism?” By “obsolete,” does he mean that he believes Russia no longer poses a serious threat?
Is he aware that the US Army 4th Infantry Division’s 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team just arrived in Poland, and that General Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, described this as “a significant moment in European deterrence and defense,” specifically noting that this “enables our force to rapidly be ready and postured should they need to deter Russian aggression?”
What’s the point of doing this if the Commander-in-Chief believes NATO is “obsolete,” and is ready to “make some deals” with Russia?
Is it some sort of good-cop, bad-cop routine? Can you really blame people for finding the idea that he’s being blackmailed by Putin plausible? If Americans can’t make sense of this — or at least, this American can’t — how can we expect adversaries to make sense of it? I truly don’t know whether we’re committed to NATO, or to any of our allies. I don’t think it’s possible to know, given how strange and mixed our signals are.
How do you understand this? How do you think the Kremlin understands it? Iran? North Korea?
Published in General
Not clear. There easily could be a drop in real inflow.
However, it appears the data is of actual filed asylum claims. Clearly this does not reflect people who have not yet (time lag) filed or who do not intend to file claims. The question is how big that group is.
True, but the number I used in total is accurate (according to Pew) if you ignore 2016 and just add the asylum seekers since the start of the Syrian “conflict”.
My point isn’t to correct you, and I’m sorry about my tone. I’d like to make a very sincere offer. It’s hard to sort out competing claims about Muslim migration to Europe and its demographic significance, especially in a journalistic age where the usual outlets have lost all credibility. My view is that 1.3 million Muslims — most of whom are not a threat to our civilization but poor wretches deserving of our compassion — are not, in a continent this size, a cause for anything like the concern I feel about a revanchist Russia with (best guess) 4,450 nuclear warheads pointed at European capitals. I am not insensate to the fact that some of these Muslims are terrorists and others have assimilated poorly, but as a threat to the West, that’s a nasty case of poison ivy. Russia is Ebola. If you put every Islamic militant in the world together, they wouldn’t possess the firepower of Uganda.
But I feel this way because I live here, and so daily see the difference between the hordes-swarms-catastrophe-of-Muslims reported in the English-language media and the reality. When I hear that European civilization is kaput because of the hordes of Muslims, I think, “Okay, who am I going to believe — the media or my lying eyes?” It seems to me analogous to the way Europeans are afraid to go to the US because they believe that America is full of people who shoot each other in shopping malls for sport. You know that’s not true, and if I tried to convince you it was, I wouldn’t get very far.
But I think the only way you’ll believe this is by seeing it for yourself. And so I’d like to invite you. And I mean this in all sincerity. Obviously, I can’t pay for a plane ticket, but if we take advantage of advance booking and good deals, we can find a reasonable price. I think if I take you on a walking tour of Paris — including the neighborhoods that are full of refugees, like Stalingrad (really called that, yes), you’ll see for yourself that the only thing that could threaten Western civilization is a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately, that’s a real threat.
In an era where journalists are so full of it, and where it’s so hard to establish who’s talking smack and who’s basically sane, I can’t ask people to just take my word for it. But maybe I can show you.
Perhaps if enough members of Ricochet would like to see for themselves, I can get us a good discount rate at a hotel or on Air B&B. And maybe we can all start by agreeing that we see the same thing.
The problem is that in situations such as these human observation is actually part of the problem. The job of the terrorist or saboteur is to blend in and look normal for as long as possible. When writing stories in the aftermath of such incidents, journalists seem to have a macro that quickly prints out the phrase, “Neighbors say he was a quiet person and there was no indication that he was capable of committing such an atrocity…”
It’s the B-17 hole theory. When bombers returned from missions all shot up, the Army Air Force urged Boeing to reinforce the areas where large chunks of the fuselage were blown away by anti-aircraft fire. Abraham Wald, a pioneer in decision theory, pointed out the opposite was true. Because these were the returning planes, observations must be reversed. The holes represent the least vulnerable and the places not hit were the spots that could bring the plane down.
To transfer this theory to humans, historians argue that the fact that there were no large sabotage incidents committed by Asian-Americans in WWII prove Roosevelt’s internment camps were unjustified. But that, too, is looking at the holes. It does not, and can not, ever answer the question if that was due to absolute loyalty or complete lack of opportunity. Unfortunately, history is not subject to double blind study.
I live here too. I am more afraid of (not so) slow civilizational collapse by immigration than nuclear annihilation by Russia. I am not the only one. Nor am I paid by the Kremlin. Russia under Putin is a big problem. But it’s not the biggest.
Very kind of you , Claire. I spent my traveling days when I was young, in my 20’s. Now I will have to wait for Scotty from Star Trek to beam me over to see you. Long airplane flights give me fits. But I understand what you are saying. I very well may have succumbed to a media fed misunderstanding on the Muslim immigrant situation in Europe.
How bout that…a different opinion. What I do not understand is why Europe refuses to defend itself. Do they spend so much on social programs they can’t afford defense? The EU economy should enable it to stand up nose to nose with Putin. The USA role, it seems to me, should be one of “we got your back, but we know you don’t need us.” Yet here we are, Big Daddy. And regarding their seemingly non assimilated Muslim population, is there a European Western Civilization lack of self esteem?
I completely agree. Dr. Peter Hammond wrote “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam” which “documents the way Muslims slowly develop a presence in various countries and as their population numbers build, become more aggressive and assertive about exercising Sharia law”.
How Islam Progressively Takes Over Countries
Taking pretty tourist photos of old-town Vienna is not investigative journalism Claire. Go to a real slum and take photos there. You’re not the only person who’s been to Europe in the last five years.
Claire, I know you are 100% sincere, but I think you are fundamentally wrong. I think Merkel’s throwing open the gates of Vienna is a catastrophe that may be some day considered analogous to the stupidity of Kaiser Wilhelm II. I concede I am not there, but the overwhelming amount of evidence I have seen in video and eyewitness accounts takes it beyond anecdotes to a valid worldview that is categorically opposite yours.
How do you explain away the reports of cheering in minority high school classes when news of the Brussels airport attack was announced? How do you explain away the stultifying miasma of political correctness that bludgeons any attempt to depart from the party line in the MSM? Why are any attempts to look at this issue clearly deemed “far right” or “ultra-right” and beyond the pale of normal conversation? I would also note that you once pointed out that you had convinced Dr. Richard Pipes to modify his view of “no-go” zones. He has since said that he stands by his original view.
I wish you would have a debate with Mark Steyn and bring facts and figures with you, I would love to be proved wrong.
I’ve only been to Europe a few times, but I know Wolfsburg had a significant Muslim population long before the current migration boom. I also saw initial reports there about Muslim riots near Paris that were revised to “youths” for all the later reporting.
All the stories I’ve seen about housing refugees recently have been in small villages in Germany. I was under the impression Paris already had Muslim sections. I suspect refugees from the Middle East would be bale to blend in there without much disruption. For small towns it would be another story.
Have you forgotten the video from the highway near Calais where the refugees were blocking large sections of the road? “Swarm” would not be an inaccurate description for that type event.
I extend the same, very sincere, invitation to you. Over the past years I think I’ve been to most of the neighborhoods in Europe that are reputed to be “real slums,” with the exception of Malmö, which I’ve never seen. I’m happy to take you to see the neighborhoods around Paris known as “Sensitive Urban Zones.” I wouldn’t feel that I was putting you at risk by taking you to them. Like the US, most European countries have bad neighborhoods, although none have anything like Chicago. (Aside from the ones that are at war, like Ukraine.) What I’d like to show you is enough for you to have a sense of proportion — of the ratio of bad to good neighborhoods, of the normalcy of life here. Again, this is a very sincere invitation: I don’t expect you to take my word for it, because what I’m saying is very different from what a lot of the media is reporting. But I’d happily make time to show you and to introduce you to people with a range of views about it.
Kinda sorta ‘yes’. It was a (more or less) deliberate strategy of the post-WW2 years for the US to provide a defence umbrella while the countries of western Europe built welfare systems to head-off the growth of their local communist parties – real communists, with real political power, many taking their orders from Stalin i.e. real threats.
But they could all pay for what they ought to have militarily if they wanted to. (Of course, saying ‘they’ is ambiguous: does that mean the politicians, the Deep State, the chattering classes, or a majority of the population?)
Over the past years I think I’ve been to most of the neighborhoods in Europe that are reputed to be “real slums,” with the exception of Malmö, which I’ve never seen. I’m happy to take you to see the neighborhoods around Paris known as “Sensitive Urban Zones.” I wouldn’t feel that I was putting you at risk by taking you to them. Like the US, most European countries have bad neighborhoods, although none have anything like Chicago.
Claire, I’ve been told walking around the Southside of Chicago is very pleasant and you would never recognize from the friendliness of the people there that it has such a negative reputation either. A recent article in the New York Times by a resident pooh-poohed the urban myths describing a regular day there – taking groceries upstairs to his apartment and leaving his trunk open while inside, etc. No daggers flying through the air.
Go in wearing a police uniform [or, I assume, the wrong gang colors] and your perception is changed.
It sounds like we need a podcast discussion between Claire and Annika Henroth-Rothstein on the subject. Perhaps you two could split the distance and tour Germany instead of France or Sweden.
After I wrote that, it occurred to me that I haven’t been to Chicago in 20 years, and when I was last there it was lovely — although I didn’t go to the south side. That said, homicide rates are (by far) the most reliable statistic we have in criminology. There’s no dark figure. When people are killed, officials will know about it. I would be astonished to learn that the reported homicide rates in Chicago — 15.65 per 100,000 — are untrue or exaggerated. By contrast, the highest homicide rates in Western Europe are in Amsterdam (4.4 murders per 100,000 people), Glasgow (3.3 per 100,000), Brussels (3 per 100,000) and Prague (2.7 per 100,000). Detroit is an astonishing 43.5.
Some of these statistics may not be robust, but the comparison of German and US crime rates here is probably generally reliable.
I totally agree America is a very violent society. I don’t think homicide rates tell the whole story though. I’ve heard home invasion burglaries and assaults are three times higher in the UK than the US, probably because of the prohibition on self defense.
I agree Germany now has an admirable crime rate compared to America. The question is why would they deliberately and consciously import a population that is going to commit 95% of their rapes [as n Scandinavia] run people down at a Christmas festival, burn down their refugee housing if they don’t get what they want?
CT,
I agree. I don’t see Annika or Ami Horowitz as right wing flaks. Their take on the no-go zones was very different. Ami was beat up just interviewing in the wrong spot.
Regards,
Jim